Skip to main content

Full text of "The Auk"

See other formats 


yt 
AO 


hy 
ty 


Ge: 


oa 
W $e > 
ihe 


42, 
Nea 
ay Sey 


‘ > 
fe Fi Maid ay 
We de fet ah 


- 
et tae 


48 te 


8 Sr 
Sy harks y ath, 
Niven he 


eS 
eee, 
Fore 


PSS. 
+; 


Pie 
Sets 
Lz 


See, 
== 


ap 
= 


pt 


teat 
¥ 3) hes 
beat 
ton 
re 


ed 
. 


nh vixk ut ue » 


J TS he 
Bat 


aint 
Tb tes yt ae} 
iar . hb ne 
Pete ye APP a Otte: 
Aaa i vibes 
a] . fete! 


4 
) 
dy 


eras 


“eo: 


sy 


7 ’ SA 7 
TE ae ah 
bh hae 
Rt . ile 


eg Pe 


cx 


$3 be 


aS vA 
7b 
(gay 


bea 
IO Ws ards pe 
V het pie ry 
HW Oy kode 
‘ 
© 


Phin 
v 


Uae 
RK He 


sae 


BF, * 
Vet Sot. 


2, 
‘yee 


ae 


oees 


emeezez 


Sr 
< 


Ds 
Ww, 


= 
= 
Coes 


= 
phe Oe tok he De 
eet te 


+ 
~ 
se. 


ore >. 
re. 


- 


a 
iy 


3%; 
re 


Ls 


' 
ae 


a3 
S9r= 


. 
. 


ete $3 
gigtstety te. 
Weres SHH 


it, 


= 


“¢ 


a 
a 


: rit 


vy 


¥. 
LZ 


7, 


. 
7 ee 


SS 


‘ 


543 


ae 


t 
fie 


‘ 
iy 
a 
Ca 


A 
th 


ia 


Stoo 
AER 


Leia 


bi, 


feted. wee 
webs ce tees 
PETS MS Ye 


at 
S 


re 
He 


— 


f 
‘ 


2. 


mea ties 


Cee ee 
Sr) 


i te! 


+ 


ote hye t 
i ae! $ 


Aek 


ak 
“ 


J 


if 


‘A 
4 


Obs 


s“"euur- = 1 foes 


he wf 
tata prea 
Ba BS te cke led OO elected 
\ | 


re AD in bates 


SION “ 


VY YSU WU THT 
behest 


so 4-t-hbalebebebiek tasked eae 


rere we 
end: eer eu 


we t 
it wv we Wwe We 
Stebel teh Pp; tpt 


fy PAS DA Sp : pea y id 
( qgeiege yr : 


Te eet LIL en 
“ . SSEIN ten pagal ts td 
hs ) | ty eave: Aaa tees 
wm LION wy Ses ae : badd Ju Poa en ah Ny 


os : ; nea ad , } VE : ede ‘i ' s 4 emcee 
Nye wre niet nensevAtrvean Many mi WW te Monnet poeneet.: 
“ he) sae LiF wit as mV w os “ 

rt sree, | Ah a Pe MTT TTT fer Dal a ei Dt 


: : fe give | 
‘ ZONE q be a hae 
Team, “finan fm Vreven” taal 


1S eo OANA LAS ¥, A 


ah 
| RRA AL bd 


A . | aes 1 Nay bigs: Miva ue at @ wae ow, 
ARM LAL FT W b | | =x 
| ST be TLL LL ine 
sgt Navy UULGIMD Tg Siero celteecenvece: 
a ‘ USS ea = se J eS i] Vy pte Pag TELL, has mee i | 
1cLeue tn 3 Pie 
» re i wr en 
wee q teas _ wwe 
suey oyt*uv eye 


Stee eT we twrtanye Www { vant 


ayy . 
Pwr 


rebate + oe or alia te 


tet 
LAGE 


if 
\ Cire et 
type Pt beth 
YoVevgs” 
: , Ci 
eats LM | 
= PERS YET on THT | | as 
/ ; a 4 eee ete x 
P we eS eel fe] 7 Ut 


oF TS a85 ee Pid | Le > - _ Athy ned 


Wilwewwee iy cer vv yyyin. OO aha Tee Le 


Dt te 


We 


bie y a ebdatlel Es 


a4. vO ty ~ 9 ‘Se5nge 
Lal yuu ay LAL wa 14 af ; 2 . eo 
| voy tag Yes < Be, : 
yore Tee CONE REE FAR IAS ADR seceerettwe 


weer are, ypyury. : 
y mama 


hele 


wey a eit, 


: bec arll 
Lvetsee nay. mytttTtto ty ny ee Ute e 
LL aaa ME TTEDLLULAGettovata TC LLCNeSEr Eten 


Cmte 
3 AT 4 ¥ 
ae tet 

oi eres nue 
i~s 
vy Le weeret 


. « eee 
OR Reet SS ” we 


{ 
! 


en 
oP» . a wr 
j y a j : = 
s ~ ee bya if 


ae Pm et Ne * 
Es 
* OLp Serius, } CONTINUATION OF THE ( New SERIES, 


Vou. XLIV. §) Buuerin or THE Nurraty OrnirHoxtocicat Citrus / Vou. XXXVI. 


The Auk 


A Quarterly Journal of Ornithology 


» 


EDITOR 


WITMER STONE 


jas 
VOLUME XXXVI fc 
{ 
PUBLISHED BY \ we 


* 


a 
The American Ornithologists’ Union .... 


aay Oven 8 


CAMBRIDGE, MASS. 
1919 


Entered as second-class mail matter in the Post Office at Boston, Mass. 


YP " on, 
‘ pitas mel al Y } 
ae t 
A afl =- 
Ls : _ 
ee ‘ i s p 
7. 
‘ 
; 
t \ 
‘ \ 
' i 
m U 
| 
, (i 
Sy = 
? $ c 
| THE Cosmos PREsS 
Cambridge, Massachusetts 
f / 
- i ; 
\ a ; 
i 
: ‘ 
- 4 
- 
% ; 
CP ten art 
. fi 7 ~ 
& es 
« 
; 
+ 7 iM ¥ 
} 
7 | 


OFFICERS OF THE AMERICAN ORNITHOLOGISTS’ 
JNION PAST AND PRESENT 


PRESIDENTS. 


J. A. ALLEN, 1883-1890. 
*D. G. Exxiot, 1890-1892. 
*ELLIoTT Covss, 1892-1895. 
*WILLIAM BrEewsTER, 1895-1898. 
Ropert Ripeway, 1898-1900. 
C. Hart Merriam, 1900-1903. 


Cuas. B. Cory, 1903-1905. 

Cuas. F. BarcHetpEer, 1905-1908. 
E. W. NEtson, 1908-1911. 

Frank M. Cuapman, 1911-1914. 
A. K. FisHmr, 1914-1917. 

JoHN H. Saas, 1917- 


VICE-PRESIDENTS. 


*ELLiotr Cougs, 1883-1890. 
Ropert Ripeway, 1883-1891; 
1895-1898. 
*WILLIAM BrewstTER, 1890-1895. 
H. W. HensHaw, 1891-1894; 
1911-1918. 
C. Hart Murriam, 1894-1900. 


Cuas. B. Cory, 1898-1903. 

Cuas. F. BatcHEeLpEerR, 1900-1905. 
E. W. Netson, 1903-1908. 

Frank M. Cuapman, 1905-1911. 
A. K. Fisumr, 1908-1914. 

WITMER STONE, 1914— 

GEORGE BIRD GRINNELL, 1918- 


SECRETARIES. 


C. Hart Merriam, 1883-1889. 


JoHun H. Saas, 1889-1917. 


T.S. Paummr, 1917- 


TREASURERS. 


C. Hart Merriam, 1883-1885. 
Cuas. B. Cory, 1885-1887. 


Wixti1am Dutcuer, 1887-1903. 
JONATHAN Dwiaut, 1903- 


*Deceased. 


MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL. 


J. A. ALLEN, 1883- Joun H. Saau, 1889- 
*S. F. Barrp, 1883-1887. *N.S. Goss, 1890-1891. 
*WILLIAM BrewstTER, 1883-1919 CHARLES F. BatcHELpER, 1891- 
MontTAaGukE CHAMBERLAIN, 1883-1888. Frank M. Cuapman, 1894- 
*ELLIoTT Cougs, 1883-1899. *CHARLES E. BENpDIRE, 1895-1897. 
H. W. Hensuaw, 1883-1894; A. K. FisHer, 1895- 
1911-1918. JONATHAN Dwiaurt, 1896- 

*GrorGcE N. LAwrEence, 1883-1890. RutTuven Drang, 1897— 

C. Hart Merriam, 1883- WITMER Stone, 1898— 

Rosert Ripaway, 1883- Tuomas 8. Roperts, 1899- 

C. B. Cory, 1885-1895, 1896- E. W. NEtson, 1900- 

WituraAmM Dutcuer, 1887- C. W. Ricumonp, 1903- 

*D. G. Exuiot, 1887-1915.: F. A. Lucas, 1905- 


LEONHARD STEJNEGER, 1887-1895; W.H. Oscoop, 1911-1918 
1896-1899. T.S. Paumer, 1917- 
*THomas McIiwraita, 1888-1889. JOSEPH GRINNELL, 1914— 
Harry C. OBERHOLSER, 1918- 


Officers are ex-officio members of the Council during their terms of 
offices and ex-presidents for life. Ex-officio members are included in the 
above. 


* Deceased. 


Elections have been in November except in 1883 and 1884 (September), 
1887 (October), 1907 and 1909 (December), 1914 (April) and 1915 (May). 


CONTENTS OF VOLUME XXXVI. 


NUMBER I. 
PAGE. 
Tue Birps OF THE RED DEER River, ALBERTA. By P. A. Taverner. 

(Plates I-IV.) . , : 1 
THe Hawaan ELepaio. By Vaughan “MacCaughey 5 22 
FurtHer Notes on New Brunswick Birps. By P. B. Philipp 

and B.S. Bowdish. (Plates V—VI.) F : : : ; 36 
WINTER Birps oF East Goosm CREEK, Fiortmpa. By R. W. Wil- 

liams : 45 
Notes on THE Summer Brrps or rue Upper YUKON REGION, 

AuasKka. By Eliot Blackwelder : 57 
Notes on Some Birps OF THE OKANAGAN VALLEY, Brivis Cotum- 

BIA. By J. A. Munro . 64 
Description or 4 New SUBSPECIES OF PIRANGA HEPATICA SWAIN- 

son. By Harry C. Oberholser . 74 


Notes on Norra AMERICAN Birps. VII. By H arry C. Oberholser . 81 
DeEscriIPTION OF A NEW SEASIDE SPARROW FROM FLORIDA. By 


Arthur H. Howell : P ; : 86 


Descriptions or New Brrps From Sourm AMERICA. By Charles 


Be GCOny) ae 88 


7 eer oon Srarep MEETING OF THE AMERICAN ORNITHOLOGISTS’ 


Union. By T.S. Palmer i : ‘ : ; : ! 90 


GENERAL NOTES. 


Further Notes on the “Fishy” Flavor of Birds, 100; Egrets (Herodias 


egretta) in Northern New Jersey, 101; Brooding Habit of the American 
Coot, 102; Stilt Sandpiper (Micropalama himantopus) in Wyoming, 
102; Notes on Migratory Anatine and Limicole from Western New 
York, 102; Spring Shore-birds in Connecticut, 104; Killdeer (Oxryechus 
vociferus) Nesting in West Haven, Conn., 105; Mourning Doves 
Sharing a Robin Roost, 106; Duck Hawks Wintering in the Center 
of Philadelphia, 108; A Note of the Long-eared Owl (Asio wilsonianus), 
109; The Short-eared Owl in Massachusetts in Summer, 109; On 
Brotogeris ferrugineifrons Lawrence, 110; Arctic Three-toed Wood- 
pecker (Picoides arcticus) at Belmont, Mass., 110; The Song of the 
Blue Jay, 111; The AXsthetic Sense in Birds as Illustrated in the Crow, 
112; Proper Name of the Tree Sparrow, 114; The Rose-breasted 
Grosbeak in Connecticut in November, 114; Zamelodia versus 
Hedymeles, 115; Rough-winged Swallow, Unusual Nesting Sites, 
115; Late Nesting of the Red-eyed Vireo in Detroit, Mich., 115; 
Local Decrease of Warblers in 1917, 116; The Name “‘erythrogaster,”’ 
and Others, 116; Waterton on Bird Song, 118; Correction, 118. 


~ 


RECENT LITERATURE. 


Beebe’s ‘Monograph of the Pheasants,’ 119; Leo Miller’s ‘In the Wilds of 


South America,’ 125; Van Oort’s Birds of the Netherlands, 127; 
Mathews’ ‘The Birds of Australia,’ 129; Beebe’s ‘Jungle Peace,’ 
130; Riley on a Collection of Birds from Northeastern Siberia, 131; 


Contents of Volume XXXVI. 


Shufeldt on the Skeleton of the Kea Parrot, 131; Murphy’s Photo- 
graphs of South Georgia Birds, 132; Taverner’s Recent Papers on 
Canadian Birds, 132; ‘Aves’ in the Zoological Record, 133; Pro- 
ceedings of the Linnzan Society of New: York, 138; Annual Report 
of the National Association of Audubon Societies, 134; Zimmer on 
Rare Birds from Luzon and Mindoro, 185; Recent Papers by Wet- 
more, 135; Five Contributions to Economic Ornithology by Collinge, 
136; Chapman’s ‘Our Winter Birds,’ 137; The Ornithological Journals, 
138; Ornithological Articles in Other Journals, 144; Publications 
Received, 144. 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


Maggot Infested Birds, 147; Evolution of Bird Song, 149; Australia’s 


Effort to Save her Bird Fauna, 151. 


NOTES AND NEWS. 


Changes in the A. O. U. Check-List, 152; Obituary: Walter Freeman 


McMahon, 153; Douglas Clifford Mabbott, 153; Prof. David Ernest 
Lantz, 154; Check Lists, M555 Paintings of Extinct Birds, 157; 
Matthews Collection of Australian Birds, 157; Account of the A. O. U., 
157; Retirement of W. Ogilvie-Grant, 157; The Ottawa Naturalist, 
157; The Chicago Ornithological Society, 158; Paintings Illustrating 
Camouflage, 158; A Supplement to ‘Townsend’s ‘Birds of Essex 
County’ Mass., 158; Alleged Occurrence of Passenger Pigeons, 158; 
Called to the Colors, 158. 


NUMBER II. 

PaGE. 

Mrs. Ottve THORNE MiLuerR. By Florence Merriam Bailey. (Plate 
VII.) :  l63 

AN EXPERIENCE WIth Hornep GREBES (Colymbus auritus). By 
Alexander D. DuBois. (Plates VIIJ-X.) 170 

HisroricaL Notes on Harris’s SPARROW Zonotrichia querula). 
By Harry Harris : 180 

NOTES ON THE STRUCTURE OF tun PALATE IN IcrERIDa. By ‘Alex- 
ander Wetmore : ‘ : Le al 9G 
THE Crow IN CoLoravo. By W. H. Bergtold : : : 2 98 
Winter Rosins in Nova Scotia. By Harrison F. Lewis . 2 2200 

Remarks on Berese’s ‘TroprcaL Witp Lirs.’ ‘By Thomas E. 
Penard . 217 

PROBLEMS SUGGESTED py NESTS OF W ARBLERS OF THE Grnvs ‘DEN- 
proica. By John Treadwell Nichols é gS 
ON THE PopuLtAR NAMES OF Birps. By Ernest Thompson Seton . 229 
Tue REALITY oF Specitus. By Leverett Mills Loomis : » | 235 

GEOGRAPHICAL VARIATION IN THE BLACK-THROATED Loons. By 
A. C. Bent 3 238 


REASONS FOR DISCARDING A PROPOSED. Racr OF THE ‘GLaucous 


Gutu (Larus hyperboreus). By Jonathan Dwight, M. D. . » 242 


Contents of Volume XXXVI. Vv 


Tue Birps OF THE Rep Derr RIvER, ALBERTA. By P.A. Taverner. 248 
Fourta ANNUAL List or ProposeD CHANGES IN THE A. O. U. 
Cuecx-List or NortH AMERICAN Birps. By Harry C. Ober- 


holser 4 , : : : : : f ( . e200 
New Forms or SoutH AMERICAN Birps AND ProposED New SuUB- 
GrenerRA. By Charles B. Cory : 4 : : 2 a2ts 


GENERAL NOTES. 


Procellariid# versus Hydrobatide, 276; Long-tailed Jaeger in Indiana, 
276; Larus canus brachyrhynchus in Wyoming, 276; Polysticta Kyton 
versus Stellaris Bonaparte, 277; Further Record of the European 
Widgeon at Madison, Wis., 277; A Late Record for Rallus elegans for 
Maine, 277; The Proper Name of the Ruff, 278; Heteractitis versus 
Heteroscelus, 278; The Status of Charadrius rubricollis Gmelin, 
279; A Self-tamed Ruffed Grouse, 279; Unusual Contents of a 
Mourning Dove’s Nest, 281; Mourning Dove Wintering in Ver- 
mont, 282; Thrasoetos versus Harpia, 282; The Status of the Generic 
Name Archibuteo, 282; Harris’s Hawk (Parabuteo unicinctus harrist) 
in Kansas, 283; The Proper Name for the Texas Barred Owl, 
283; Concerning a Note of the Long-eared Owl, 283; The Short- 
eared Owl Breeding on Nantucket, 284; Early Occurrence of the 
Snowy Owl and the Pine Grosbeak in Monroe County, New York, 
285; The Deep Plantar Tendons in the Puff-birds, Jacamars and their 
Allies, 285; The Status of the Genus Hypocentor Cabanis, 286; A 
Correction Involving Some Juncos, 287; An Additional Record of 
Ammodramus savannarum bimaculutus in Eastern Washington, 287; 
The Dickcissel in New Hampshire, 288; Early Nesting of the Logger- 
head Shrike, 288; A Note on the Decrease of the Carolina Wren near 
Washington, D. C., 289; The Affinities of Chamethlypis, 290; Blue- 
winged Warbler Feeding a Young Field Sparrow, 291; The Blue- 
winged Warbler near Boston, 292; Nashville Warbler (Vermivora 
ruficapilla) in New York in Winter, 293; Four Rare Birds in Sussex 
County, New Jersey, 293; Notes from a Connecticut Pine Swamp, 
293; The Name eyrthrogaster, 294; Constant Difference in Relative 
Proportions of Parts as a Specific Character, 295; “Off” Flavors of 
Wildfowl, 296. 


RECENT LITERATURE. 


‘The Game Birds of California,’ 297; Mathews’ ‘The Birds of Australia,’ 
299; De Fenis on Bird Song in its Relation to Music, 300; Dwight 
on a New Gull, 301; McAtee on the Food Habits of the Mallard 
Ducks, 301; Stone on Birds of the Canal Zone, 302; Shufeldt on the 
Young Hoatzin, 302; Riley on Celebes Birds, 302; Oberholser’s 
‘Mutanda Ornithologica V,’ 303; Miller’s ‘Birds of Lewiston-Auburn 
and Vicinity,’ 303; Recent Papers by Bangs, 304; Economic Orni- 
thology in Recent Entomological Publications, 304; The Ornithologi- 
cal Journals, 307; Ornithological Articles in Other Journals, 312; 
Publications Received, 314. 


CORRESPONDENCE. 
Identifications (Characters vs. Geography), 316. 


vi 


Contents of Volume XXXVI. 


NOTES AND NEWS. 


Obituary: Frederick DuCane Godman, 319; Robert Day Hoyt, 319; 


The Mailliard Collection, 320; Recent Expeditions, 321; The Flem- 
ming Collection, 321; Rare Birds in the Philadelphia Zoo, 321; 
Meeting of the R. A. O. U., 322; U. S. National Museum Collection, 
322; A. O. U. Check-List, 322; New National Parks, 322; Geographic 
Distribution of A. O. U. Membership, 323; The Migratory Bird Law, 
323; The Delaware Valley Ornithological Club, 323; Common Names 
of Birds, 324; Birds of Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Delaware, 324. 


NUMBER III. 


PAGE. 
Some Notes ON THE DRUMMING OF THE RUFFED Grouse. By H. E. 
Tuttle. (Plate XI.) , , - : : . F A ays) 
“THE Sincinc TREE,’ oR How NEAR TO THE NEST DO THE MALE 
Birps Sine? By AH. Mousley ; : : ; : . 339 
THe Karty History or a Duck Hawk. By Viola F. Richards. 
(Plates XII—XTIT.) : ‘ ; : 5 : : . 349 
A Cotony or Cape Cop Pipine Prover. By C. A. Robbins . 351 
Buiack Duck Nestina tn Boston Pusiic GARDEN. By Horace W. 
Wright . ; : : : ; ; ; : : 7 SOD 
THREE INTERESTING GREAT HorNED Owxs FROM NEW ENGLAND. 
By Glover M. Allen : 4 : : ‘ : Aes OY 4 
VARIATION IN THE GALAPAGOS ALBATROSS. By Leverett Mills 
Loomis. (Plates XIV—XVI.) ; : : : : 52 S70 
AupDUBON’s BrstiocrapHy. By Francis H. Herrick  . : = one 
Some SumMerR Birps or Liserty County, Grorcia. By W. J. 
Erichsen . é : : : : : ; ‘ : . 9380 
A Taree Monrus’ List or THE Brrps or PINELLAS County, FLor- 
e IDA. By Major Clifford H. Pangburn 393 


Notes ON NortH AMERICAN Birps. VIII. By Harry C. Oberholser 406 
THE GEOGRAPHIC Races or Hedymeles melanocephalus SwAINSON. 


By Harry C. Oberholser 408 


GENERAL NOTES. 


The Generic Name of the Gannets, 417; Polysticta versus Stellaria, 418; 


Megalestris versus Catharacta, 418; Destructive Invasion by an Aus- 
tralian Rail, 418; Sarcidiornis sylvicola in Venezuela, 419; Occurrence 
of the Red Phalarope in Pennsylvania, 419; The Status of the Genus 
Archibuteo Brehm, 420; Golden Eagle at East Moriches, N. Y., 421; 
Arctic Three-toed Woodpecker at Southampton, Mass., 421; Blue 
Jay again in Jefferson Co., Colorado, 422; Song of the Canada Jay, 
422; Evening Grosbeak in New Jersey, 423; The Pine Grosbeak 
(Pinicola enucleator leucura) in Northwestern New Jersey, 423; 
Karly Occurrence of the Red-breasted Nuthatch in New Jersey, 423; 
The Range of the Short-tailed Mountain Chickadee (Penthestes 
gambeli abbreviatus Grinnell), 424; Note on Audubon’s Labrador Trip, 
424; Destruction of Sea Birds in Labrador, 427; Specific Names in 
the Nominative Case, 427; Editions of Baird, Cassin and Lawrence’s 
‘Birds of North America,’ 428; Observations on the Shifting Range, 
Migration and Economic Value of the Bobolink, 430. 


Contents of Volume XXXVI. vii 


RECENT LITERATURE. 


‘A Practical Handbook of British Birds,’ 432; Harris’s ‘Birds of the 


Kansas City Region,’ 433; Baileys’ ‘Wild Animals of Glacier National 
Park,’ 484; Moseley’s ‘Trees, Stars and Birds,’ 484; Miss Ball’s ‘A 
Year with the Birds,’ 435; Gilmore’s ‘ Birds of Field, Forest and Park,’ 
436; Stephens on the Birds of San Diego County, California, 437; 
Swarth on New Subspecies of Passerella iliaca, 437; Annual Report 
of the State Ornithologist of Massachusetts, 438; Noble on the Birds 
of Newfoundland, 438; Chubb on South American Birds, 438; The 
Ornithological Journals, 439; Ornithological Articles in Other Journals, 
442; Publications Received, 444. 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


Further Note on Identifications (Characters versus Geography), 446. 


NOTES AND NEWS. 


Obituary: Dr. Louis Brazil, 449; Frederick Bridgham McKechnie, 449; 


Organization of the American Society of Mammalogists, 451; Gaspe 
Bird Reserves in Quebec Province, 451; Correction on Townsend’s 

‘Birds of Essex County,’ 451; Birds in Museums of Warsaw, 451; 
New Species of African Birds, 452: New- Members of B. O. U., 452; 
Memorial to Salvin and Godman, 452; Odlogical Museums in 
California, 452; ‘American Museum Journal,’ 453; ‘The Passenger 
eo ue 4 in reece aaa 453; Thirty-seventh Stated Meeting of the 
A 3h 


NUMBER IV. 


PaGE 
Notes on A NEw SuBSPECIES OF BLUE-WINGED TEAL. By Fred. 
H. Kennard. (Plate XVII) . ; : . 455 
‘Tue Systematic Position or THE RING-NECKED DUCK. By N. 
Hollister. ; : . 460 
Jacosp Post GIRAuD, Jr. AND HIS Works. By Witmer Stone. 
(Plate XVIII) : 464 
Furrner Nores AND OBSERVATIONS ON THE Brrps OF Hariey, 
SransTEAD County, QuEBEC, 1918. By H. Mousley . 472 
DICHROMATISM IN THE WEDGE-TAILED SHEARWATER. By Lev rerett 
Mills Loomis. (Plate XIX). 487 
Tur Nest anp Eaeas or WAYNE’s W ARBLER (Dendroica 1 virens 
waynei) TAKEN NEAR Mount Pueasant, 8. C. By Arthur T. 
Wayne . E , F : ; : i : : . 489 
A Heronry oN LAKE Cormorant, Minnesota. By Horace 
Gunthorp : : ‘ ; i . 492 
Birv-Lire iN SOUTHWESTERN FRANCE. By Thomas D. Burleigh . 497 


Notes on Birps OF THE CuiIcaGo AREA AND ITS ImMMeEDIATE VicIN- — 513 


my. By C.WoG. Burg 


vill Contents of Volume XXXVI. 


GEOGRAPHICAL VARIATION IN THE SONG OF THE RUBY-CROWNED 


Kincter. By Aretas A. Saunders q : 525 
THE EvoLutTion or Brrp-Sone. By Francis H. Allen : y 528 
REVISION OF THE GENUS Buthraupis CaBants. By Thomas E. 

Penard : : : ; ; i ; : ; . © 536 
Descriptions or THREE New Sour American Birps. By 

Charles B. Cory : : . f , : s .  o40 
THe RELATIONSHIP OF THE GULLS Known as Larus fuscus AND 

Larus afinis. By Jonathan Dwight, M.D. (Plates XX and 

XX1) ; : ‘ ; 3 : ‘ ; 4 : = 1542 
Forsrer’s Eprrion or LeVaruant’s “Orseaux p’AFRIQUE.” By 

Charles W. Richmond ; : ; : ; ; : . 546 
Notes ON THE Races oF Quiscalus quiscula (Linnmus). By Harry 

C. Oberhoiser  . ; : ; ; 5 : j ; . 549 
Norrs on Norra AMERICAN Birps. IX. By Harry C. Oberholser. 556 


GENERAL NOTES. 


European Widgeon on Long Island in Winter, 560; Breeding of the 


Black Duck in Lake Co., Ohio, 560; Ruddy Shelldrake on the 
Atiantic Coast, 561; Exanthemops Elliot an Excellent Genus, 562; 
Notes on the Structure of Anseranas semipalmata, 562; Sarkidiornis 
sylvicola in British Guiana, 564; An Overlooked Record of the 
Trumpeter Swan, 564; Little Blue Heron on Long Island, N. Y., 565; 
Wood Ibis in Massachusetts, 565; Roseate Spoonhill in Utah, 565; 
Roseate Spoonbill in North Carolina, 566; Growth of a Young 
Kildeer (Oxyechus v. vociferus), 566; Mating “Song” of the Pip- 
ing Plover, 566; Upland Plover in New York, 567; Turkey Vul- 
ture at Plymouth, Mass., 567; Harris’s Hawk in Kansas, 567; 
Tachytriorchis, the Generic Name for the White-tailed Hawk, 567; 
A Flight of Broad-winged Hawks and Roughiegs in Lake Co., Ohio; 
568; Buteonide versus Accipitride, 569; Snowy Owl in Detroit 
Mich., 569 The Name of the Black Cuckoo, 569; Aerial Evolutions 
of a Flicker, 570; Two Recent Records of the Horned Lark in Western 
New York, 570; Abnormal Beak of a Horned Lark (Otocoris alpestris 
praticola), 571; The Raven in Connecticut, 572; Evening Grosbeaks 
about Beverly Farms, Mass., 572; Evening Grosbeaks at Boonville, 
N. Y., 573; The Evening Grosbeak on Long Island, N. Y., 573; Even- 
ing Grosbeaks again at Lakewood, N. J., 573; Evening Grosbeak 
(Hespertphona v. vespertina) in Ohio in May, 574; Henslow’s Sparrow 
in New York and Virginia, 574; The Dickcissel in Virginia, 575; 
Piranga erythromelas versus Piranga olivacea, 575; The Tanagrine 
Genus Procnopis Cabanis, 576; Early Arrival of the Tree Swallow in 
Plymouth, 577; Hybrid Warbler in Missouri, 579; The Orange- 
crowned Warbler on Long Island in April, 579; Peculiar Brooding 
of the Black-throated Blue Warbler, 579; The Yellow-throated 
Warbler in Central New York, 580; Nesting of the Myrtle Warbler in 
Southern Massachusetts, 581; The Cerulean Warbler (Dendroica 
ceru/ea) in the Catskills, 582; Carolina Wren (Thryothorus l. ludovi- 
cianus) Nesting in Rhode Island, 583; A Short-billed Marsh Wren 
Colony in Central New Hampshire, 583; Red-bellied Nuthatch 
(Sitta canadensis} in Alabama, 584; The Blue-gray Gnateatcher on 
Cape Cod, 584; Strange Conduct of a Robin, 584; A Three-legged 
Robin (Planesticus m. migratorius), 585; Notes from St. Marks, Fla., 
586; Further Notes from Leon Co., Florida, 587; Two Interesting 


Contents of Volume XXXVI. ix 


Additions to the Collection of the Boston Society of Natural History, 
589; Bird Notes from Collins, Erie Co., N. Y., 589; Additions to 
‘The Birds of Liberty County Ga.,’ 590; Dataon the Age of Birds, 591. 


RECENT LITERATURE. 


Bent’s ‘Life Histories of North American Diving Birds,’ 593; Ridgway’s 
‘The Birds of North and Middle America, Part VIII,’ 595; Witherby’s 
“A Practical Handbook of British Birds’ 597; Roberts on Minnesota 
Birds, 598; Second Ten Year Index to The Condor, 598; Riley on 
New Birds from Celebes and Java, 599; Chubb on South American 
Birds, 599; Lonnberg on Hybrid Gulls, 599; Recent Papers by Ober- 
holser, 600; Captain S. A. White’s Explorations in Australia, 600; 
Bangs and Penard’s ‘Critical Bird Notes,’ 601; Cassinia for 1918, 602; 
Gladstone’s ‘Birds and the War,’ 602; Mathew’s ‘The Birds of Aus- 
tralia,’ 603; Wetmore on Lead Poisoning in Waterfowl, 605; French’s 
‘The Passenger in Pennsylvania,’ 605; Economic Ornithology and 
Bird Protection, 606; Report of the National Zoological Park, 607; 
Annual Report of the New York Zoological Society, 607; The Meaning 
of Natural Control, 608; An Essay on Crows, 609; Two Papers on 
African Economic Ornithology, 609; Report on the Economic Value 
of Eight British Birds, 610; The Ornithological Journals, 610; Ornitho- 
logical Articles in Other Journals, 617. 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


Permits to Collect Birds for Scientific Purposes in Canada, 621; Captain 
Thomas Brown’s ‘Illustrations of the American Ornithology of Wilson 
and Bonaparte,’ 623; Feeding of Grackles 627. 


NOTES AND NEWS. 


Obituary Notices — William Brewster, 628; M. Namiye, 628; Merrill’ 
Willis Blain, 629; Leo Wiley, 629; Indexes to Ornithological Litera- 
ture — Journals, 630; Where American Ornithologists Rest, 631;, 
Complete Sets of ‘The Auk,’ 634; The Smithsonian African Expedi— 
tion, 634; Annual Meeting of the A. O. U., 635. 


INDEX. : ; i ; ; ; ‘ . Page 637 
ERRATA . : : ; : : : , : p : «668 
Dates or Issue ; : : ; \ : 3 . ; “668 
OFFICERS OF THE A. O. U. Past AND PRESENT. : ; Y i 
CouNCcIL «“ “ “ “ «“ “ “ ll 
ContTENTS : : é : d : : : ? : yg ill 
OFFICERS AND MEMBERS é ; ; ; ; ; : C xk 
ILLUSTRATIONS. 
PLATES. 


Plate I. Little Sandhill Creek, Alberta. 
II. Red Deer River below Nevis, Alberta. 
« III. Camp near Red Deer, Alberta. Nests of Cliff Swallows. 
and Prairie Faleon. Two views. 


Contents of Volume XXXVI. 


Plate IV. Nest of Ferruginous Rough-leg. View of Red Deer River. 
Two views. 
. V. Nest of Cape May Warbler. Wilson’s Snipe on Nest. 
Two views. 

« VI. Arctic Three-tced Woodpecker and Nest. Two views. 

VII. Mrs. Olive Thorne Miller. 

+3 Vill. Nesting Site of Horned Grebe. Two views. 

7 IX. Nest of Horned Grebe. Two views. 

ic X. Horned Grebe on its Nest. Two views. 

i XI. Ruffed Grouse Drumming. 

si XII. Nest and Nest Site of Duck Hawk. Two views. 

ms XII. Young Duck Hawk. Two views. 

“ XIV. Downy Young of Diomedia irrorata. 

a XV.» Culmen of Diomedia irrorata. 

“ XVI “ “ “ “ 

“XVII. Heads of Blue-winged Teal. 

“ XVIII. Jacob Post Giraud. 

: XIX. Skins of Wedge-tailed Shearwater. 

i XX. Wing tips of Larus fuscus fuscus. 

_ XXI. Wing tips of Larus fuscus affinis. 

Trxt-Cots. 

Head of Quiscalus quiscula @neus  . : : : Page 191 
Head of Icterus gularis yucatanensis A 195 
Charts showing correspondence of occurrence of Robins with 

temperature variation and snowfall me Palys 
Diagram showing variations in measurements of Larus hyper- 

boreus . : ; F : : “244 
Diagram of bill ‘of Larus hyperboreus : , : 2 oi 
Map of Red Leer Region, Alherta . : ; : : “249 
Diagram. 


Diagram. 


OFFICERS AND COMMITTEES OF THE AMERICAN 
ORNITHOLOGISTS’ UNION. 1919. 


Expiration of Term 


SAGEM OHING EO METOSIGENE. a. 5 0 visiarsotic aan te etiels teins November, 1919. 
i WVice=Presidentsemm see ae by 1919. 
GRINNELL, GEORGE Brrp 

VATENGE RH Seed SAIS ECELATIY Le, <. aeim alee Worn ere a 4) c1ete sieeve 2 1919. 
DD WAGHT JONATHAN: UNCOSUTETIA soe sels -leicesia sels clele se * 1919. 


ApDITIONAL MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL. 


DANTE EG UERVINN ey steve ntsc ieee ciewslear terete sieiecensvotsls G6 ls she November, 1919. 
OM CHER ea WATTIGDAII se eee cower rass cic eashevesss sieeicts «sails seers ¢ 1919, 
ERUNINT ete OSE PH a Soi ist tie sticcsteeersic esters = 5 sveks, ac wis’s. ss f 1919. 
LEC CAS Pe ERED ERIC) HAG sta ci stores optusie se etheres ele eyois.ees si e'6 eens l6 o 1919. 
Opn Onsen y HARRY C.. 26 cloned ceidelen ot Gest seine ae £ 1919. 
RICHMOND a OHARTES! Wise ticis onl sewleck aici e cicleie says 0 «l/s « 1919. 
ROBERTS aMIRH OMAGM Oscr craie se rac tore che to ateiace eis a detisle) o15)s 5 1919. 
PAST RIND REC MEA cette sec Nen Pie v/a a reac ech tanal epee el steers Reasie sane 
BATGHME DER: | OHARMS HE, « ¢.ljorsoles x unclerds ele mameee «« 
SRE WS BER VV AlsIGVAMieys ns. cpr sts ial nin wearer serie eieyer crore 2 
SELUNPNOAN MEE RAN: ce s/c sca) spaie ta hess ates aet ss aes 
CW CHARTERS WSs cethi cco ov. ols lars eusretin dine ete gs e's. on Ex-Presidents. 
ISHS MPPAUC BER Tt gh cue) sou ce Masiniaie sicicae eo isi ats a rekere eu 


RVNEECECM Ae SeEDAR TAs oa Nene, haan aps terepaauereyekeieee a Sons 
Netson, Epwarp W 
Ripveway, RoBEertT 


Epiror1AL Starr or ‘THE AUK.’ 


Sonn}, Wino, Jeers ooassoscoeoubeogdoucocmonaee November, 1919. 


CoMMITTEES. 


Committee on Arrangements for the Meeting of 1919. 


Saag, Joun H., Chairman CRANDALL, LzEE S. 
Paumer, T. S., Secretary Mourpuy, Roser C. 
Dwicut, JONATHAN NicHois, JoHn T. 


Pearson, T. GILBERT. 


Committee on Biography and Bibliography. 


Parmer, T. 8., Chairman Deane, RUTHVEN 
ALLEN, GLoverR M. RicHMOND, CHARLES W. 
STongeE, WITMER 


xii Officers. 


Committee on Bird Protection. 


Fisuer, A. K., Chairman Netson, FE. W. 
RIcHMOND, CHARLES W. 


Committee on Classification and Nomenclature of North American Birds. 


Sronn, Witmer, Chairman GRINNELL, JOSEPH 
RicumonpD, C. W., Secretary Merriam, C. Hart 
ALLEN, J. A. Netson, E. W. 
BREWSTER, WILLIAM OBERHOLSER, H. C. 
CuapmMan, F. M. PatMER, T. 8S. 
Dwicut, JONATHAN Ripeway, Roperr 


Committee on Publications. 


Sacer, Joun H. Stonn, WITMER 
Pautmer, T. 8., Secretary DwicHt, JONATHAN 


Fellows. Xili 


FELLOWS, MEMBERS, AND ASSOCIATES OF THE 
AMERICAN ORNITHOLOGISTS’ UNION. 
APRIL, 19191 


FELLOWS. 

Date of 

Election. 
AuEn, Dr. J. A., Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., New York, N. Y....... Founder 
PONTE OMY eA] VV es MPONSICE, OLG aa Yhyten cine eiickele cede aio ve « (1885) 18952 
Banas, OurraM, Museum Comp. Zoélogy, Cambridge, Mass.. . (1884)1901 
Barrows, Prof. W. B., Box 1047, East Lansing, Mich.............. 1883 
BaTCHELDER, CHARLES F., 7 Kirkland St., Cambridge, Mass... . . Founder 
Beese, C. Witi1am, New York Zoél. Park, New York, N. Y.. .(1897)1912 
Bent, ARTHUR CLEVELAND, Taunton, Mass.................. (1889) 1909 
*BICKNELL, EUGENE P., 30 Pine St., New York, N. Y............ Founder 
BisHop, Dr. Louts B., 356 Orange St., New Haven, Conn...... (1885)1901 
*BREWSTER, WILLIAM, 145 Brattle St., Cambridge, Mass........ Founder 
Brown, NatHan Cuiirrorp, 218 Middle St., Portland, Me....... Founder 


CHADBOURNE, Dr. ArTHUR P., The Copley-Plaza, Boston, Mass. (1883) 1889 
Cuapman, Dr. Frank M., Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., New York, N. Y. 


(1885) 1888 
*Cory, CHarues B., Field Museum Nat. Hist., Chicago, Ill....... Founder 
DEANE, RutHyen, 112 W. Adams St., Chicago, Ill................. 1883 
DutcHer, Wiuuiam, 949 Park Ave., Plainfield, N. J......... (1883) 1886 


Dwicut, Dr. JonaTHAN, 134 W. 71st St., New York, N. Y.....(1883)1886 
FisHer, Dr. ALBERT K., Biological Survey, Washington, D. C.... Founder 
Fisuer, Prof. WatTer K., 1525 Waverley St., Palo Alto, Cal. (1899)1905 
FLEMING, JAMES H., 267 Rusholme Road, Toronto, Ontario. . . (1893)1916 
ForsusH, Epwarp H., State House, Boston, Mass........... (1887)1912 
Furrtses, Louis A., Cornell Heights, Ithaca, N. Y......... (1891)1912 
GRINNELL, Dr. GEorGE Birp, 238 E. 15th St., New York, N. Y....... 1883 
GRINNELL, Dr. Josepu, Mus. Vert. Zodél., Univ. Cal., Berkeley, Cal. 

(1894) 1901 
Jongs, Lynps, Spear Laboratory, Oberlin, Ohio............ (1888)1905 


1 Members of the Union, and subscribers to ‘The Auk’ are requested to promptly notify 
Dr. JoNATHAN Dwicnut, Treasurer, 134 W. 71st St., New York City, of any change of 
address. 

2 Dates in parentheses indicate dates of joining the Union. 

* Life Fellow. 


XIV Honorary Fellows. 


Loomis, Leverett M., Cal. Acad. Sci., San Francisco, Cal... . . (1883)1892 
Lucas, Dr. Freperic A., Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., New York, N. Y. 
(1888) 1892 
MAILuiARD, JOSEPH, 1815 Vallejo St., San Francisco, Cal... ..(1895)1914 
McATEE, Watpo Leg, Biological Survey, Washington, D. C.. . (1903)1914 
*McGrecor, Ricuarp C., Bureau of Science, Manila, P.I..... (1889) 1907 
Merri, Dr. C. Hart, 1919 16th St., N. W., Washington, D. C. Founder 
MILLER, WALDRON DeEWirt, Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., New York, N. Y. 


(1896) 1914 
INEAREING Ee Gotha. Hil aces tca es ee at eo aed fae ara 1883 
NELSON, E. W., Biological Survey, Washington, D.C............... 1883 
OBERHOLSER, Dr. Harry C., Biological Survey, Washington, D. C.. 

(1888) 1902 
Oscoop, Dr. Witrrep H., Field Museum Nat. Hist., Chicago, III. 

(1893) 1905 


*PatMmer, Dr. T.S., 1939 Biltmore St., N. W., Washington, D.C.(1888)1901 
Pautmer, WitiiaMm, U. 8. National Museum, Washington, D.C.(1888) 1898 
Ricumonp, Dr. Cuartes W., U. 8. National Museum, Washington, 

D2 CH Siok a Sel AONE Rae ae ee eee eee (1888) 1897 
Ripeway, Dr. Ropert, U. 8. Nat. Mus., Washington, D. C.....Founder 
Roserts, Dr. THomas 8., Univ. of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minn.. . . 1883 
*SAGH;, JOHN? H.:. Portland; Conny. {Yee ee te rs eevee eee 1883 
SAUNDERS, WILLIAM E., 240 Central Ave., London, Ontario......... 1883 
SHUFELDT, Dr. Ropert W., 3356 18th St., N. W., Washington, D.C. Founder 
Strong, Dr. Wirmer, Acad. Nat. Sciences, Philadelphia, Pa... . (1885) 1892 
Swarru, Harry S., Mus. Vert. Zodlogy, Univ. of California, Berke- 


Ch don G1) POON Nae teere ETA S EH mba citinery aid Go Uitidc (1900) 1916 
TAVERNER, Percy A., Victoria Memorial Museum, Ottawa, Canada 

(1902) 1917 

Topp, W. E. Ciypr, Carnegie Museum, Pittsburgh, Pa....... (1890) 1916 

WipMAnn, Orro, 5105 Von Versen Ave., St. Louis, Mo.............. 1884 


RETIRED FELLOWS. 


Hensuaw, Henry W., The Ontario, Washington, D.C....... (1883) 1918 
LAWRENCE, NEWBOLD T., Lawrence, N. Y...............-; (1883) 1913 
SrrgneGcER, Dr. LeonHarp, U.S. Nat. Mus., Washington, D.C.(1883)1911 


HONORARY FELLOWS. 


Burur.in, Sergius ALEXANDROVICH, Wesenberg, Esthonia, Russia 
(1907)1916 

DaBBENE, Dr. Roperto, Museo Nacional, Buenos Aires, Argentina 
(1916)1918 


— 


* Life Fellow. 


Corresponding Fellows. XV 


Dusors, Dr. ALpHonse, Villa Rayon de Soleil, Coxyde sur Mer, Bel- 


eRUEITT errr ote io rae Seen ait ok hs amy a) Sree ot wre ora ye (1884) 1911 
Evans, ARTHUR HuMBLE, 9 Harvey Road, Cambridge, England 
(1899) 1917 
Fiirsprincer, Prof. Dr. Max, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, 
Gerrnianye eye re erie cay apcts ante tela! sacvoh one care tareke bats (1891)1916 
Gapvow, Dr. Hans Frrepricu, Cleramendi, Great Shelford, near 
@ambridve qs Minaland sac hyt 2 cua te ete eae ceca = operas (1884) 1916 
Haacner, Auwyn Kartu, Zodlogical Gardens, Box 754, Pretoria, 
phransyvaal we Sout Atri Cae smectite tt sieislarer ste cnet (1916)1918 
Harrert, Dr. Ernst J. O., Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts, England 
(1891)1902 
Hetimayr, Dr. Cart E., Neuhauserstrasse 51.IJ, Munich, Germany 
(1903)1911 
Inprinc, Dr. HerMANN von, Hansa de Joinville, Estado de Sta. 
OPPS Bh g rial oes 2 ccna hes Coie aca Sapir ee ec i (1902)1911 
Lonnperc, Dr. A. J. Eryar, Naturhistoriska Riksmuseum, Veten- 
skapsakademien, Stockholm, Sweden..............-...-. (1916)1918 
Ménitcaux, Dr. Aucusrr, Museum d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris, 
EEA COMM IM Ree ret Tate eae, eae scree merereusitiigs aherd © U8 (1916)1918 
Pycrarr, WILLIAM PLANE, British Museum (Nat. Hist.) Cromwell 
ROR C e OMC OTe mica w WV Gtiisneeihcrys: 4 aetna eda aga hed dei heym eine (1902)1911 
ReicuENnow, Dr. Anton, Konigl. Mus. fiir Naturkunde, Invaliden- 
SUNS Se CBR Ste gaa aR engender ron Decor (1884)1891 
Roruscuinp, Lord Lionet WatteER, Zodlogical Museum, Tring, Herts, 
IBrayed bate lon nos loecaste otal Gute ee RD DMT cos 0 cei ea Oh Cetin (1898) 1913 
Satvaport, Count Tommaso, Royal Zoél. Museum, Turin, Italy..... 1883 
Scuatow, Prof. Herman, Hohenzollerndamm 50, Berlin-Griinewald, 
(Garaget ete a eee fo. er U NERS Ca OS SiS tein ne ae mee (1884) 1911 
Scuarer, Wa. Luriey, 10 Sloane Court, Chelsea, London, 8. W, 1. 
(1906) 1917 
Suscuxin, Dr. Peter, University, Kharkov, Russia... ...... . (1903)1918 


CORRESPONDING FELLOWS. 


Assorr, Dr. Witur1aM L., Aldine Hotel, Philadelphia, Pa........... 1916 
AuFaro, Don ANAsTASIO, San José, Costa Rica.............6-.000- 1888 
ALPHmRAKY, Sercius N., Imperial Acad. Sci., Petrograd, Russia... .1913 
ARRIBALZAGA, ENRIQUE LyNcuH, Resistencia, Chaco, Argentina...... 1918 


ARRIGONI DEGLI Opp1, Count Errore, Univ. of Padua, Padua, Italy. 1900 
Asupy, Epwin, Wittunga, Blackwood, Adelaide, South Australia. ...1918 
Baker, E. C. Stuart, Chief Police Office, West India Docks, London, 

AE mad aE Ia Sg ee te ten Woes sae nicr suse ne tas's soe =cbis 0, éu2 elensiele 1918 


xvi Corresponding Fellows. 


BANNERMAN, Davip ARMITAGE, 6 Palace Gardens Terrace, Kensing- 
(Role tiovekoy, AWE ty IMME 65 cb oso uno casoucuugumeueouuoe 1916 
BreppDARD, FRANK Evers, Zodl. Society of London, London, Eng... ..1917 
Brancul, Dr. VALENTINE, Imperial Zo6l. Museum, Petrograd, Russia. 1916 
Bonuote, JoHN Lewis, Gade Spring Lodge, Hemel Hempstead, Herts, 
Bingen ieee nah oe atrestet ek oct tae ee ean 1911 
Bureat, Dr. Lours, Ecole de Médecine, Nantes, France............ 1884 
BirriKorer, Dr. JoHANNES, Zoélogical Garden, Rotterdam, Holland. 1886 
CAMPBELL, ARCHIBALD JAMES, Custom House, Melbourne, Australia. 1902 
CarRIkER, M. A., Jr., Apartado 51, Santa Marta, Colombia. . . (1907)1912 
CHAMBERLAIN, Monracus, Cambridge, Mass............. (Founder) 1901 
Cuusp, CuHares, British Museum (Nat. Hist.) Cromwell Road, Lon- 
Ons Se Ws iiss AG ch eee a ee ee ea teen ee 1911 
CLARKE, WILLIAM Eac te, Royal Scottish Museum, Edinburgh...... 1889 
Cotuince, Dr. WALTER E., 3 Queen’s Terrace, St. Andrews, Scotland. . 1918 
DaucLeIsH, JoHn J., Brankston Grange, Bogside Station, Alloa, 


SCO tad yee Soci ken votave eek ROE oe EL ea RPT eae ene 1883 
Dork SANFORD: BS. -Honolulu; Hawai. cei se een te a ee 1883 
Ecut, ApotpH BACHOFEN VON, Nussdorf, near Vienna, Austria...... 1883 
FErILDEN, Col. HENry Wemyss, Burwash, Sussex, England.......... 1884 
FERRARI-PEREZ, Prof. FERNANDO, Tacubaya, D. F., Mexico........ 1885 


FREKE, Percy Evans, South Point, Limes Road, Folkstone, England. 1883 
Gopwin-AuvstENn, Lieut.-Col. Hanry Haversuam, Nore, Hascombe, 


Godalming; Surrey,.Hneland=)s:)425 12-9) eee eerie eer 1884 
GRANDIDIER, ALFRED, 6 Rond-Point des Champs Elysées, Paris... .. 1883 
GURNEY, JOHN HENRY, Keswick Hall, Norwich, England............ 1883 
GYLDENSTOLPE, Count Nits, Naturhistoriska Riksmuseum, Veten- 

skapsakademien, Stockholm, Sweden.............-......+---- 1918 
Hau, Ropert, Tasmanian Museum, Hobart, Tasmania........... 1916 
Hartina, JAMES EpmMunp, Portmore Lodge, Weybridge, Surrey, Eng- 

NT Chee eR cca, wed CAA orem re OT PLE See TOE ante eee 1883 
Hewnnicke, Dr. Cart R., Gera, Reuss, Germany.................. 1907 
Hinson; Harry V., Yokohama, Japan. tess cc sce cite ops wines 1888 
Hupson, Witt1AM Henry, Tower House, St. Luke’s Road, West- 

bourne}Park, London) Wit sc ee ote eee niet Gio 1895 


IREDALE, Tom, 39 Northcote Ave., Ealing, London, W. 5, England... .1918 
JouRDAIN, Rev. Francis C. R., Appleton Rectory, Abingdon, Berks, 


11 1-2 6216 en nee ee hoa OR en lets Gem EG! & c 1918 
Kuoss, Ceci Bopren, Kuala Lumpur, Federated Malay States... .1918 
Kritirer, Dr. THrEospatp J., University Museum, Athens, Greece... .1884 
Kouropa, NaGamicuti, Fukuyoshi Cho, Akasaka, Tokyo, Japan...... 1918 
Le Soviir, Duptey, Zodlogical Gardens, Melbourne, Australia...... 1911 
Lowe, Dr. Percy R., The Hatch, Windsor, England................ 1916 
MacFaruane, Roperick, 251 Colony St., Winnipeg, Manitoba...... 1886 


Maparisz, Dr. Juttus von, National Museum, Budapest, Hungary. 1884 


Members. xvii 


Maruews, Grecory M., Foulis Court, Fair Oak, Hants, England... .1911 
Menzsigr, Prof. Dr. Micuarn, University for Women, Devitchje, 


HO leva MOS COWaNEGUSSLE (21.5.4). 017) Meaeunme ra fe wats of SaMe ne: Lub G all Wane 1884 
Miuats, JOHN GUILLE, Compton’s Brow, Horsham, Sussex, England. 1911 
INURE aD JY Ue, Kofatoy, d Fey oF Over e BINA Ai, 08 a Bln tre HipieenInilain MA Ginin oeerato 1886 
NIcHOLSON, FRANcIs, Ravenscroft, Windermere, Westmoreland, Eng- 

TESTO Lc Sa ake a Ze od ee PE vee 1884 
Oaitvir-GRANT, WILLIAM Rosert, British Museum (Nat. Hist.), 

CromwelleRoads Hondonsiss We ian 4e sees cutee chins c scene 1899 
PATNIEN POE Jew. elsinctors wHinland!2e een oe iaee ssyen cece eh 1883 
RamspDEN, Dr. CHarues T., Box 146, Guantanamo, Cuba...... (1912)1918 
RINGMAWUREDERICH Nagasaki apale see yecic sie sls aiacbee cst 1888 
Roprnson, Herpert C., Selangor State Museum, Kuala Lumpur, 

Hederatede Malaya statesa pastries creel te ae wc cieterale 1918 
SNETHLAGE, Dr. Emriura, Museu Goeldi, Pard, Brazil.............. 1915 
SWYNNERTON, CHARLES FRANcIS Massy, Gungunyana, Melsetter, 

SOUUMMIEHO CES Aare itte telat tatters Aten one ean a. hs) dat, ONT: 1918 


TuHeeEL, Dr. JonAN Hsaumar, University of Upsala, Upsala, Sweden. . 1884 
TicrHuRST, NORMAN FREDERIC, 24 Pevensey Road, St. Leonards-on- 


Seaver OUSHe Komen Ol AIC pe nase cee hss eens hence ara e south eg 1918 
TscHUsI ZU SCHMIDHOFFEN, Victor, RitreR von, Villa Tannenhof, 
peimrtalleins tSalzpurey Austrians d-s sce eie eels crete: © sieucie nr 1884 


Van Oort, Epuarp DanteL, Museum Nat. Hist., Leyden, Holland. .1913 
Warternouse, F. H., Zool. Soc. of London, Regents’ Park, London, 

UN SSM VW ere Ean LATA Ch eag tetas enc apaiey orege Shoe ee cans oA cickare vente boeceigiees. sages 1889 
Wince, Dr. Heriur, Univ. Zoél. Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark. .1903 
WiTHeEerBy, Harry Forses, 3 Cannon Place, Hampstead, London, 


NFPA V cee Ue me TNO LTH, se ateay Sea Net 5 SrA Niet evra Sai Yate) OS SY nage en tives 27S 4 2 1916 
WiORCHSTHE-eerot. OMAN C., Manila. Plein te ew cces 6 «cee aes 1603 
ZELEDON, Don José C., San José, Costa Rica...................055 1884 

MEMBERS. 
Auten, ArTHur A., McGraw Hall, Cornell Univ., Ithaca, N. Y.(1909)1914 
Alten, FRANCIS H., 4 Park St.; Boston, Mass.............. (1888)1901 
Auten, Dr. GLover M., 234 Berkeley St., Boston, Mass....... (1896) 1904 
AnpERSON, Dr. RupotpH M., Mus. Geol. Survey, Ottawa, Canada. 
(1907)1914 
Artrwatsr, H. P., 2120 Genesee St., Houston, Texas........ (1891)1901 


BaILey, VERNON, 1834 Kalorama Ave., Washington, D.C... .(1887)1901 
Battery, Mrs. Vernon, 1834 Kalorama Ave., Washington, D. C.(1885)1901 
BATE VW TnrANe lar OATCIMONes Paso. so cae ots e th alu terete (1886) 1901 
Barsoour, Dr. THomas, Mus. Comp. Zodlogy, Cambridge, Mass. (1903)1914 


XVill Members. 


Bartscu, Prof. Paut, U.S. Nat. Museum, Washington, D. C..(1896)1902 
Breck, Ro.tto Howakrp, San José, R. D. 288, Cal............. (1894)1917 
BercToLp, Major W. H., 1159 Race St., Denver, Colo....... (1889)1914 
Bonp, FRANK, 3127 Newark St., N. W., Washington, D. C....(1887)1901 
Bow es, JoHN Hooper, The Woodstock, Tacoma, Wash... . .(1891)1910 
Braisuin, Dr. WituraM C., 425 Clinton Ave., Brooklyn, N. Y.. . (1894)1902 
Brooks, Major ALLAN, Okanagan Landing, B. C............ (1902) 1909 
Brooks, Ensign WM. Spracub, 234 Berkeley St., Boston, Mass.(1907)1917 
Bryan, WiLLiAM ALANSON, College of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaiian 


Psa As) couse tc esete eke SST ees on Pa RTC aE eas (1898) 1901 
Bryant, HAROLD CuiLp, Mus. Vert. Zool., Berkeley, Cal....... (1913)1918 
BURNS; SHRANK, erway, leave scent ee eerie ee tect (1891)1901 
Burier, Amos W.,52 Downey Ave., Irvington, Indianapolis, Ind.(1885)1901 
CHAMBERS, W. Lex, Eagle Rock, Cal....................-. (1907)1913 
Cuapin, Lieut. JAMES P., Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., New York, N. Y. 

(1906) 1917 
CHERRIE, GrorGuK., Newlane: Vtir4 -).4-2eeek eee eee (1917)1918 
Criark, Dr. Hupert Lyman, Mus. Comparative Zoél. Cambridge, Mass. 

(1886) 1902 
Daacett, Frank S., Museum, Exposition Park, Los Angeles, Cal. 

(1889) 1901 
Dawson, Wo. L., R. D., No. 8, Box 110, Santa Barbara, Cal... (1895)1905 
Drang, WALTER, 29 Brewster St., Cambridge, Mass......... (1897) 1901 


Eaton, Prof. Eton Howarp, 678 Main St., Geneva, N. Y.....(1895)1907 
EveRMANN, Prof. Barton W., Cal. Acad. Sci., San Francisco, Cal. 


(1883) 1901 
Frnuey, WiuuraM L., 651 East Madison St., Portland, Ore... (1904)1907 
Gavi; -Banzamin Troup, Glen Hllyn; TU comers oe (1885) 1903 
GotpMAN, Major Epwarp A., Biological Survey, Washington, D. C. 

(1897)1902 
Griscom, Lieut. LupLow, 37 5th Ave., New York, N. Y....... (1908)1918 
Harper, Lieut. Francis, 3001 24th St. N. E., Washington, D. C.(1907)1917 
Hersey, F. Seymour, 6 Maple Ave., Taunton, Mass.......... (1911)1916 
Horrmann, Raupu, 5554 Waterman Ave., St. Louis, Mo...... (1893)1901 
Houutster, Nep, Nat. Zodlogical Park, Washington, D. C.....(1894)1910 
Hownin, A. Brazmr, Covina, ‘Calveeean qa epee eee a (1909) 1916 


Howe tu, Artuur H., 2919S. Dakota Ave., Washington, D. C.(1889)1902 
Jacoss, J. WARREN, 404 S. Washington St., Waynesburg, Pa. . (1889) 1904 
JEFFRIES, WILLIAM A., 11 Pemberton Square, Boston, Mass.. .(1883)1901 


Jos, HERBERT K., 291 Main St., West Haven, Conn......... (1896) 1901 
KatmsBacu, Epwin R., Biological Survey, Washington, D. C..(1910)1915 
*KENNARD, F. H., Dudley Road, Newton Centre, Mass....... (1892) 1912 
Knowtton, F. H., U. 8. Nat. Mus., Washington, D. C........ (1883) 1902 
Law, J. EucEne, 8333 S. Catalina St., Los Angeles.......... (1907)1916 


Mackay, Grorce H., 304 Bay State Road, Boston, Mass... . . (1890)1901 


Members. xix 


MAILurArpD, JoHn W., 230 California St., San Francisco, Cal. (1895)1901 


Moore, Ropert Tuomas, Haddonfield, N. J............... (1898) 1914 
Morris, GEoRGE SPENCER, Olney, Philadelphia, Pa......... (1887) 1903 
Morris, Rosert O., 82 Temple St., Springfield, Mass....... (1888) 1904 
Mourpocu, Joun, 16 High Rock Way, Allston, Mass......... (1883)1901 
Morpuy, Ropert C., Museum Brooklyn Institute, Eastern Parkway, 

1 SY ROYO) fol hig egal Cea ae a SP gi A (1905) 1914 


NicuHo.s, Joun T., Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., New York, N. Y....(1901)1914 
Norton, Artuur H., Mus. Nat. Hist., 22 Elm St., Portland, Me.(1890)1902 
PEARSON, T. GILBERT, 1974 Broadway, New York, N. Y.... .(1891)1902 


Prrmrs, Lieut. James Lez, Harvard, Mass..............:.. (1904) 1918 
Puituirs, Capt. Joan C., Wenham, Mass.................. (1904) 1912 
PREBLE, Epwarp A. Biological Survey, Washington, D. C.....(1892)1901 
RaTHBUN, SAMUEL F., 217 14th Ave., N., Seattle, Wash....... (1893) 1902 


Ruwoaps, SAMUEL N., 81 Haddon Ave., Haddonfield, N. J... ..(1885)1901 
Rivey, Joseps H., U.S. National Museum, Washington, D. C.(1897)1905 
Rives, Dr. Witutam C., 1702 Rhode Island Ave., Washington, D. C. 


(1885)1901 
Kosinson, Col, Wirt, U.S. A., West Point, N.Y.......:..... (1897)1901 
Seton, Ernest THompson, Greenwich, Conn............... (1883) 1901 


*SHERMAN, Miss ALTHEA R., National via McGregor, Iowa. . (1907)1912 
*SHIRAS, Hon. GrorGe, 3d, Stoneleigh Court, Washington, D. C.(1907)1915 
STEPHENS, FRANK, Nat. Hist. Museum, Balboa Park, San Diego, Cal. 


(1883) 1901 
Strona, Dr. Reusen M., Vanderbilt Medical School, Nashville, Tenn. 
(1889) 1903 
Swa es, BrapsHAwW Hatt, U.S. Nat. Mus., Washington, D. C.(1902)1909 
THavER, JOHN Exzor, Lancaster, Mass....................5. (1898)1905 
TownseEnpD, Dr. CuHarutes H., Aquarium, Battery Park, New York, N. Y. 
(1883) 1901 
TownsEnD, Dr. CHARLES WENDELL, 98 Pinckney St., Boston, Mass. 
(1901) 1905 


Trotter, Dr. Spencer, Swarthmore College, Swarthmore, Pa.. (1888)1901 
TyLER, Capt. Winsor M., 522 Mass. Ave., Lexington, Mass. . . (1912)1917 
WarrREN, Epwarp Royat, 1511 Wood Ave., Colorado Springs, Colo. 


(1902)1910 
Warnn, ARTHUR. >, Mt. Pleasant, S.C... .. se... eo une (1905) 1906 
WeEtTMoRE, ALEX., Biological Survey, Washington, D. C.....(1908)1912 
WILLETT, GEoRGE, 2123 Court St., Los Angeles, Cal......... (1912)1913 


Wiuiams, Rospert Wuirts, Dept. Agric., Washington, D. C.. . (1900)1918 
Wotcortt, Dr. Ropert H., State University, Lincoln, Neb... (1901)1903 
Woop, Norman A., Museum Univ. of Mich., Ann. Arbor, Mich.(1904)1912 
Wricut, Mrs. Masext Oscoop, Fairfield, Conn............. (1895)1901 


* Life Member. 


xx Associates. 


ASSOCIATES. 
AxsBoTt, CLINTON GILBERT, Orchard Hill, Rhinebeck, N. Y......... 1898 
Aspotr, Miss FLoRENCE I., Upland Road, Andover, Mass.......... 1917 
ABBorr. Miss) ERARRInT eb mye burg sien rn ret tse erie sae 1918 
ACKERMAN, JosEPH Moopy, High St., Newburyport, Mass......... 1918 
Apams, Brensamin, Wethersfield, Conn.....................000008: 1911 
ApAMs, WALLACE, 2630 Webster Ave., Berkeley, Cal............... 1901 
Avams, Dr. Z. B., 43 Cottage Farm Rd., Longwood, Mass.......... 1908 
AIKEN, Hon. JoHN, Superior Court, Court House, Boston, Mass....... 1905 
Ammar, Dr. CHARLES Pons, 4 Vanderhorst St., Charleston, 8S. C....... 1916 
ALEXANDER, Miss ANNIE M., Suisun City, Cal..................... 1911 
ALLAMAN, Ransom Perry, R. D. No. 4, Bedford, Pa.............. 1918 
ALLEN, Mary P., 206 Moore St., Hackettstown, N.J............... 1913 
ANDERSON, ERNEST M., Provincial Museum, Victoria, B. C....... 1915 
ANDERSON, Mrs. J. C., Great Barrington, Mass................... 1903 
ANGELL, WALTER A., 33 Westminster St., Providence, R. I......... 1901 
AntTHONY, Capt. H. E., Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., New York, N. Y.....1911 
Appren, W. D., 4119 Houston Ave., Norwood, Ohio............... 1917 
ARMITAGE: UCLUS, (252 Hr. 62 St. ING waly Onkem Ney eerste na) ie re 1918 
ARMSTRONG, Epwarp, E., 2249 Calumet Ave., Chicago, Ill.......... 1904 
ARNOLD, Epwarp, Grand Trunk R’y., Montreal, Quebec........... 1894 


ARNOLD, Dr. W. W., 504 N. Nevada Ave., Colorado Springs, Colo... . .1910 
ARTHUR, STANLEY CuiisBy, 1109 Henry Clay Ave., New Orleans, La. .1916 
ASPINWALL, Mrs. CLARENCE A., 1839 Wyoming Ave., Washington, 


1B Mt Oran eee Nye Sr Re Oa eee as Mia co Ate 1916 
ATHERTON, Epwarp H., 82 Ruthven St., Grove Hall, Mass......... 1917 
Ayres, Miss Mary ADELINE, 119 High St., Medford, Mass......... 1915 
Bascocr,: Dray, Long's: Peak, \Colo,jerrs cae pee ee ee 1911 
Bascock, Capt. HAroLp Lester, Woodleigh Road, Dedham, Mass..1916 
Bacuracu, Mrs. BensaAmin, 1437 West Main St., Decatur, Ill....... 1918 
Bacon, Francis L., 236 Winona Ave., Germantown, Pa............ 1917 
Bap, Dr. Wn. Freperic, 2616 College Ave., Berkeley, Cal......... 1916 
Bapasr, ArTHurR C., 167 Dudley Road, Newton Centre, Mass...... 1917 
Baae, Aaron C., 70 Fairfield Ave., Holyoke, Mass................. 1916 
Baca, Eeprrt,, Jn., 406 Genesee St. Utica IN. Younis sein oe > sce ee 1916 
Baaa, Joun Leonarp, 89 Lexington Ave., Holyoke, Mass........... 1918 
Battey, ALFRED M., La. State Mus., New Orleans, Louisiana....... 1918 
BatiEy, ProfssGuy As) Geneseo; Naive aan ee nee cue a ee 1910 
Batrp, Miss KATHARINE Bruce, 815 Webster St., N. W., Washington, 

DNC ised acs sc NE in snoi'e § satel eee R CO en Ne SU ee 1918 
Baker, Lieut. Joun H., Nat. Cash Register Co., Dayton, Ohio...... 1911 
BaLpwin, Rocer N., 70 5th Ave., New York, N. Y............... 1904 


BALDWIN, S. PRENTISS, 2930 Prospect Ave., Cleveland, Ohio........ 1917 


Associates. Xxi 


Bass, Dr. BLENN R., 149 W. Main St., Circleville, Ohio........... 1907 
Anh. Vrs benner b.,’Oalcvalle; Connie). Ys). os suas lace eich ove 6 1905 
BAL, EDWARD M., Hast Walls*Church) Va...02.. 0.2.2) 2a) oe co8 - 1918 
Batt, Dr. Jas. P., 5001 Frankford Ave., Philadelphia, Pa........... 1911 
Barsoour, Rev. Ropert, Y. M. C. A., Montclair, N.J.............. 1902 
Barker, Miss HELEN, 421 E. Adams St., Sandusky, O........... 1918 
BarnarkD, Judge Jon, 1401 Fairmont St., Washington, D. C........ 1886 
BaRNES, CLAUDE T., 359 Tenth Ave., Salt Lake City, Utah......... 1908 
BARNHS hon, ih.) VEAGOON, “Lacon, TMT. 3.5402 ie paces <a siaushe fae oe 1889 


Barrett, Cuas. H. M., 1339 Valley Place, S. E., Washington, D. C..1912 
Barrett, HAaRoLD LAwReENcs#, 172 Huntington Ave., Boston, Mass.. .1909 


Barry, Miss Anna K., 5 Bowdoin Ave., Dorchester, Mass.......... 1907 
BartTLeTtT, Henry, 49 Middle St., Acushnet, Mass................ 1917 
BartTLetr, Miss Mary F., 227 Commonwealth Ave., Boston, Mass. .1912 
BarRTRAM, Epwin B., 200 N. 3rd St., Philadelphia, Pa............. 1913 
Batcuetor, Mr. Marion C., 27 Janssen Pl., Kansas City, Mo....... 1916 
Barren, Gporce, 93 Union'St., Montclair, Ni J... 0.0. ...080.5.--- 1914 
DAYNES) Heanmsr Haroun, Meriden, IN. Hews... 40.0.2... oben. 1918 
Betz, Dr. W. B., Biological Survey, Washington, D. C............. 1912 
BENNETD Rev. GHORGE, lowa Citys Towa. . 0.4... seeee oss see o « 1913 
BENNETT, WILLIAM J., 1941 Ist St. N. W., Washington, D.C........ 1901 
Benson, C. STanuey, 75 Plymouth St., North Abington, Mass....... 1915 


BIcKNELL, Mrs. F. T., 319 8. Normandie Ave., Los Angeles, Cal... ..1913 
Bippie, Miss Emity WItiiams, 2201 Sansom St., Philadelphia, Pa... .1898 


BicEeLow, Dr. Lyman F., 80 Winter St., Norwood, Mass............ 1914 
BLACKWELDER, Exrot, Natural History Bldg., Urbana, IIl.......... 1895 
BLoomFIELD, Mrs. C. C., 723 Main St., W., Jackson, Mich.......... 1901 
BoarpMaNn, Miss E. D., 416 Marlborough St., Boston, Mass......... 1906 
Bopineg, Mrs. Donaupson, 4 Mills Place, Crawfordsville, Ind........ 1916 
Bogarpus, Miss Coaruorre, Elm St., Coxsackie, N. Y............. 1909 
Boaert, Wiuu1aM S., 2610 Eldridge St., Bellingham, Wash.......... 1904 
Bout, BENJAMIN FRANKLIN, 1421 Prospect Ave., Kansas City, Mo. .1909 
BOND HARRY la bakefiel dain sien gees ne ae eee 1908 
BonrFits, FREDERICK G., 1500 E. 10th Ave., Denver, Colo........... 1918 
IBOREAND AW Ma G.0% Wall St: News YOrks (Nii Yascises 0s cae ele ne cen 1911 
Bosson, Campse.t, 30 State St., Boston, Mass................... 1906 
Boutton, W. Rupyup, Jr., 338 1st St., Beaver, Pa.........'........ 1915 
BOURNE, Daossis., aamburg. Ne Va! es ets ue ie. ok 1913 
BOWDISH Wis 75- OCMATES DING Deis si) S os. 5 Viale gun shine, hades eh! sie dies scan 1891 
Boworer, »Mrss iB. 1S. Denmiarest; IN. Dio posed alan din gdie epee ea ae siete 1902 
Bowopircu, Dr. Haroxp, 60 Harvard Ave., Brookline, Mass......... 1900 
Bowpircu, James H., 903 Tremont Bldg., Boston, Mass........... 1913 
Boyp, Mrs. Harriet T., 17 Marsh St., Dedham, Mass............. 1917 
Boyz, Howarts S., Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., New York, N. Y....... 1916 


Boynton, CuHarzes T., 1005 S. Sheridan Road, Highland Park, IIl.. .1912 


Xxll Associates. 


BrackEn, Mrs. Henry M., 1010 Fourth St., S.E., Minneapolis, Minn. . 1897 


Brapsury, W. C., 1440 Race St., Denver, Colo.................-.. 1915 
BrapDLeE, Major THomaAs STEVENSON, Somerset Club, Boston, Mass.1902 
BRAINERD, Barron, 57 Monmouth St., Brookline, Mass........... 1917 
BRANDRETH, COURTENAY, ‘Ossining, (Ni "YWondee ass oeeess scree 1905 
*BRANDRETH, RANKIN, (Ossining -sNi = Ya eeeeeereiean ones 1889 
Branpt, HERBERT W., 2025 East 88th St., Cleveland, Ohio........ 1915 
BREWSTER, EpwaRD EvEreEtTT, Iron River, Mich................... 1893 
Brewster, Mrs. W1Li1AM, 145 Brattle St., Cambridge, Mass........ 1912 
BripGE, Epmunp, 52 Wyman St., West Medford, Mass............. 1910 
*BRIDGE, Mrs. EpMunp, 52 Wyman St., West Medford, Mass........ 1902 
Brices, JoserH S., 1372 Powell St., Norristown, Pa............... 1916 
BritTEN, Capt. G. S., 807 Walnut Ave., Syracuse, N. Y........... 1913 
BROocKWAY,, AnrauR W., iHadlyme, (Connie oe eee 1912 
Brooks, Rev. Earte Amos, 10 Beacon St., Everett, Mass......... 1892 
Brown, Miss Annie H., 31 Maple St., Stoneham, Mass............. 1909 
Brown, Miss Bertua L., 53 Court St., Bangor, Me............... 1918 
Brown, Epwarp J., 1609 S. Van Ness Ave., Los Angeles, Cal....... 1891 
Brown, G. Frank LIN, ‘“‘Stonebridge,”” Needham, Mass............ 1917 
Brown, Harry A., 40 Talbot St., Lowell, Mass................... 1912 
Brown, Mrs. Henry Trempie, Lancaster, Mass................... 1912 
Brown, Puiuip G., 85 Vaughan St., Portland, Me................. 1911 
Brown, Stewarpson, 20 E. Penn St., Germantown, Philadelphia, Pa. 1895 
Brown, Wo. James, 250 Oliver Ave., Westmount, Quebec......... 1908 
Browninc, Wm. Hatt, 16 Cooper Square, New York, N. Y......... 1911 
Bruen, Franx, 69 Prospect St., Bristol, Conn.................-.. 1908 
BRUMBAUGH, CHALMERS 8., 1020 Cathedral St., Baltimore, Md.....1916 
BUCHANAN, Rounin’ Hi; Excelsior,’ Minmn,; sine. to= eins ie oe 1918 
Bunker, Cuaryues D., Kansas Univ. Museum, Lawrence, Kan...... 1916 
Burcess, Jonn Krnassury, “Broad Oak,’’ Dedham, Mass......... 1898 
Bur.eicH, Txos. D., 825 N. Negley Ave., Pittsburgh, Pa........... 1913 
Burnett, Witu1aM L., State Agric. College, Fort Collins, Colo....... 1895 
IBURTCH a VERDIC Branchpont, Newly sary ae ee ee mets pene ee 1903 
BUTTERWICK, CLAUDE A., 116 Broad St., Telford, Pa............... 1917 
BUTTERWORTH, FRANK SEILER, Prospect St., New Haven, Conn.....1918 
BuzzE.., Mrs. Jas. C., 11 Hudson St., Bangor, Me.................. 1918 
Byrn, Mrs: Hiram: (Winters Parke Bin. ues ee tet ee ae eee 1918 
Capuc, Eucens E., 512 Massachusetts Ave., Boston, Mass......... 1910 
Caun, ALVIN R., 4720 Greenwood Ave., Chicago, IIl............... 1917 
CALLENDER, JAMES PHILLIps, 32 Broadway, New York, N. Y....... 1903 
CaMPBELL, Mrs. Editha S., 263 W. 7th St., Erie, Pa............... 1917 
CANTWELL, GEORGE G., 901 W. Main Ave., Puyallup, Wash......... 1916 
Carne, Mrs. THomas, 41 Melrose St., Adams, Mass............... 1917 


* Life Associate. 


Associates. Xxlil 


Carpenter, Rev. CHARLES Knapp, 174 Forest Ave., Oak Park, IIl.. .1894 


CaRPENTER, GEORGE I., 129 Dean St., Brooklyn, N. Y............. 1907 
CarriceEr, H. W., 5185 Trask St., Fruitvale Station, Oakland, Cal.. .1913 
CARROLL, Mrs. OLtvia Garnsry, Rutland, Mass..................- 1918 
Cininn JOHN. 1). lansdowne, Pay 6.05. as ecc/oaecsee on geet as 1907 
Casu, Harry A., 448 Hope St., Providence, R..I..............--4- 1898 
Caswe.t, Mrs. ArtTHUR E., 241 Union St., Athol, Mass............. 1918 
CHAMBERLAIN, CHauncy W., 36 Lincoln St., Boston, Mass........ 1885 
Cuaptn, Prof. ANctr Ciara, Wellesley College, Wellesley, Mass... .1896 
(CHAPKIANES Virsene ves etinglewoods INidic meses cic: cee sacs siciele alle 1908 
CuHApMAN, Royat N., Dept. Animal Biology, Univ. of Minnesota, 
IMUtonaS ey oes) IM bhatt datets-c aoe cl BSble cee en lac nc creole aed eto oaks 1911 
CHuAse SmNEY, 25 Ames Bldg. Boston, Mass... 0 2..0.¢..2.0..5- 1904 
CuHEESMAN, Morton R., 2703 Ocean Front, Ocean Park, Cal........ 1911 
@macnn CHaAs, We, Upper Marlboro, Mdii.c 2s. iis en. s ons were a 1918 
Crank. @GARWNCH Hig MWuloecs VICI iss yetchs.cs ccere esc este <rctesleg alas « 1913 
CuarRk, JostaH H., 238 Broadway, Paterson, N. J................. 1895 
CuaRKeE, CHARLES E., 51 Summit R’d, Medford, Mass............. 1907 
Cxiarke, Miss Harriet E., 9 Chestnut St., Worcester, Mass.......... 1896 
Cuiarke, Miss Mary 8., The Lamont, Pittsburgh, Pa............... 1916 
rive Ci lrvin, box 353, Mureka, Callin... s cid oe debls cee ken ce 1918 
CLEAvEs, Howarp H., Conservation Comm., Albany, N. Y...... 1907 
CLEVELAND, Dr. CLEMENT, 925 Park Ave., New York, N. Y......... 1903 
CLEVELAND, Miss Lintan, Woods Edge Road, West Medford, Mass. . 1906 
Coan wrienny. Ke, Haichland) Park, Ton. fs cne.s wctaree keane 1883 
Coss, Miss ANNIE W., 20 Amsden St., Arlington, Mass............. 1909 
Coss, Pattie Hacker, Loomis Inst., Windsor, Conn............... 1917 
Coss, Dr. STantry, 340 Adams St., Milton, Mass................. 1909 
Copy, Prof. Water Guyton, 49 High St., Middletown, Conn...... 1916 
Corrin, Mrs. Perctvat B., 3232 Ellis Ave., Chicago, Ill............ 1905 
Corrin, Rosert L., Mass. Agric’]. Exp. Sta., Amherst, Mass....... 1917 
Coceins, HERBERT L., 2929 Piedmont Ave., Berkeley, Cal.......... 1913 
Cotsurn, ALBERT E., 806 8. Broadway, Los Angeles, Cal........... 1891 


Cote, Dr. Leon J., College of Agric., Univ. of Wis., Madison, Wis... .1908 
Commons, Mrs. F. W., 608 Chamber of Commerce, Minneapolis, Minn.1902 


Cong, Mrs. Henry F., 4 Trinity St., Hartford, Conn.............. 1917 
Coney, Mrs: Gro. H., R. F. D., Box 25, Windsor, Conn............- 1906 
Concer, PAUL. SIDNEY W.., Prairie dujSac, Wis..:..;.. 0... .acea+ os 1918 
Cook, Freprrick W., 1604 East Harrison St., Seattle, Wash........ 1915 
Cook, Miss Linian GILLeTre, Long Lea Farm, Amherst, Mass... ..1899 
Cookmes GHORGE J.) Ambler Pay. shins sso op loa se dee facies eos 1916 
Cooker, Miss May Tuacuer, 1328 Twelfth St., Washington, D. C....1915 
Sorta hRANCIS dls OINOCK, Patt eae since «sma ect ovis ees 1892 


CopELAnD, Miss Apa B., 1103 White Ave., Grand Junction, Colo... ..1917 
CorELAND, Manton, 88 Federal St., Brunswick, Me............... 1900 


XXIV Associates. 


CorRRINGTON, JULIAN Dana, 406 University Ave., Ithaca, N. Y....... 1916 
CouRSsEN, Bian, Univ.of Chicago, Chicago, Tl)... 1.0... .8. 258: 1918 
CovetL, Dr. Henry H., 1600 East Ave., Rochester, N. Y......... 1918 
Craic, WALLACE, Univ. of Maime, Orono, Me.....:...........- 1912 
Cram, R. J., 26 Hancock Ave., W., Detroit, Mich... .......::3.208 1893 
CRANDALL, LenS: N. YZools Parks New YorkNeY..4.. 2s. ee 1909 
CRANE, Miss) Cranach. Dalton, Massieccae atari ee +e eee 1904 
CRANE, Mrso-ZEnas) Dalton) Masson. aerate ence ric eee ere 1904 
CREHORE, FREDERIC M., Box 1252, Boston, Mass................. 1913 
Cressy, Mrs, A.'S.,; 287 Sargeant St.,, Hartford, Conn: ...:.2.....4-2: 1912 
Crmpie? NORMAN: Trusbank; Manz. 07 eae ceca ee ee 1918 
Crospy, Capt, MAuNsELE S:, Rhinebeck, IN. wY ae soos es a eer 1904 
Cross, ALBERT AsHiry, Huntington, Mass................2.:.-:: 1918 
CROWELL, Miss>3;. Ontvra, Dennis’ Massena re te eee 1918 
Cummincs, Miss Emma G., 16 Kennard Road, Brookline, Mass....... 1903 
CurRIER, EDMONDE SaMUEL, 416 E. Chicago St., Portland, Ore...... 1894 
Curry, HAaskKEeLL Brooks, 60 Bay State Road, Boston, Mass....... 1916 
Curtis, CHARLES P., 244 Beacon St., Boston, Mass.............. 1915 
CusHMAN, Miss Attic, 919 Pine St., Philadelphia, Pa............... 1910 
Dane, Mrs Kenesr B;o Chestnut. Hill Midss pecseee see cen ne 1912 
DANFORTH, Stuart T., 115 N. 6th Ave., New Brunswick, N. J....... 1916 
Davenport, Mrs. Evizasets B., Brattleboro, Vt.................-. 1898 


Davipson, Mrs. GayLorp, 1302 W., S. Grand Ave., Springfield, Ill... .1912 
Day, CHESTER Sgsstons, 1711 Commonwealth Ave., Boston, Mass.. .1897 


DEAN, R. H., 720 Quintard’ Ave., Anniston, Alal- i5....22 sacs 1913 
DEANE, GEORGE CLEMENT, 80 Sparks St., Cambridge, Mass....... 1899 
Decker, Harotp K., 342 Guyon Ave., Oakland Heights, N. Y...... 1916 
DeLoacu, R. J. H., 6605 Harvard Ave., Chicago, Ill............... 1910 
DensMorE, Miss MaBEL, 910 4th St., Red Wing, Minn............. 1910 
Dersy, Major Ricuarp, 116 E. 79th St., New York, N. Y........... 1898 
Dersy, WILLIAM M., Jr., 4857 Kimbark Ave., Chicago, Ill......... 1916 
Dewey, Dr. Cuar.es A., 78 Plymouth Ave., Rochester, N. Y....... 1900 
Dexter, Lewis, 1889 Elm St., Manchester, N. H................. 1915 
Dicer, Ler Raymonp, Dept. Zodél., Univ. Illinois, Urbana, Ill....... 1918 
Dickry, Donatp R., San Rafael Heights, Pasadena, Cal........... 1907 
Diu, Prof. Homer R., State Univ. of Iowa, Iowa City, Ia........... 1916 
Ditie, FrepericK M., Niobrara Reservation, Valentine, Neb...... 1892 
Dimick, CuHarues W., 1007 Tremont Bldg., Boston, Mass........... 1917 
Dionne, C. E., Laval University, Quebec, Canada................ 1893 
Drxon, Freperick J., 111 Elm Ave., Hackensack, N.J............. 1891 
Drxon, JosepnH S:; Univ. of ‘Cal Berkeley, Cali e. ccc. en. cee 1917 
Dorn, Prof. Louts, Concordia College, Fort Wayne, Ind........... 1912 
Droummonp, Miss Mary, 510 Spring Lane, Lake Forest, Ill......... 1904 


Du Bots, ALEXANDER. D.,, Dutton Montz .2 o2.0) eo. en ee ee 
Dunn, MrsivA. P.L., 211, N: Front St;, Harrisburg, Pacs-2 2 4..oe 1900 


Associates. XXV 


IDoNnBAR, Mass Luonu, R. D. 1, Elkhorn, Wis..22.. 0.0. 4..605505.-5 1918 
DuREBE,-OWwEN,; Box 125; Fall River, Massi.... 022: .-6605265 65's 1887 
Duryea, Miss ANNIE B., 62 Washington St., Newark, N. J......... 1911 
Dyke, ARTHUR CurTIs, 205 Summer St., Bridgewater, Mass....... 1902 
Eastman, Major Francis B., Camp Grant, Ill................... 1909 
*HATON, HowarpD, Wolf, Sheridan Co., Wy0..............-2005--%% 1918 
Eaton, Miss Mary S., 8 Monument St., Concord, Mass............. 1909 
Eaton, Scotr Harrison, Box 653, Lawrenceville, Ill............... 1912 
Epson, JoHN M., Marietta Road, Bellingham, Wash............... 1886 
Epson, Wo. L. G., 54 Fairview Avenue, Rochester, N. Y........... 1916 


Epwarps, KaTHarIngE M., Wellesley College, Wellesley, Mass... ..1918 
Exrncer, Dr. CiypE E., 100 W. Rosedale Ave., West Chester, Pa... 1904 


Eirric, Prof. C. W. Gustave, 504 Monroe Ave., Oak Park, Ill....... 1901 
Hiernck, Dr, Aueusr F., New Haven, Mo:...:.::.............-- 1906 
Bre naw SIDNEY ltt. E...23) Rantoul, WW. sg vi ec. saws oe oe 1918 
ExKsLAw, WALTER Etmer, 713 W. Washington Blw’d., Urbana, IIl...1911 
Exprince, ARTHUR S., South Lincoln, Mass...... Wi evils Ghareas Date ebnes 1912 
Exrot, Wituarp Ayres, 1011 Thurman St., Portland, Ore.......... 1918 
E.iot, Mrs. J. W., 124 Beacon St., Boston, Mass................. 1912 
Sm GHORGH be NOGWalken © ONMey. cee seisiecie cine « «ere ciec« «erst « 1904 
EMERESON MWR OTTON Ay WAT, Galinins, ciays aac: Skies mis # die Bis sl 1916 
NOS EUnNRY, ANT: PRINCeGON, (Ni. eds <cscicee eset dw eige’s edo 36 5 + 1918 
Evans, Dr. Evan M., 550 Park Ave., New York, N. Y............. 1918 
BIVANS A VWVIETAM Bs slVGOrestowmwNa Jeane cise sc0sicracisesc a oe eee 1897 
Bienen O weAG monorails SING alls. ie cietararaisvos Ashita aod «4 Shei th» 1918 
Fannina, Dr. WALTER G., 2 Hunt St., Danvers, Mass............... 1917 
Hanger, Mrs. Wm.,; 1019 16th St., Modesto, Cal................... 1918 
FARLEY, JOHN A., 52 Cedar St., Malden, Mass...........%.........- 1904 
AR QUHARY PAR THUR) VOLK bape ois) feelin Sealine avs aio oi aieistsis sais <a « 1916 
Farrar, Epwarp Rogsrs, South Lincoln, Mass................... 1917 
Faxon, ALLAN Hart, 7 Edwards St., Southbridge, Mass........... 1916 
*Fay, Duprey B., 287 Beacon St., Boston, Mass................... 1916 
Fay, Lieut. S. Prescott, 53 State St., Boston, Mass............... 1907 
Freiarer, AtvA Howarp, North Side High School, Denver, Colo... . .1898 
Frit, Miss Emma Trego, 1534 N. Broad St., Philadelphia, Pa....... 1903 
Freip, Dr. Georae W., Biological Survey, Washington, D. C....... 1910 


Fisuer, Miss En1zaABETH WILSON, 2222 Spruce St., Philadelphia, Pa.. 1896 
Fisuer, Dr. G. Ciypr, American Mus. Nat. Hist., New York, N. Y..1908 


FLANAGAN, JOHN H., 89 Power St., Providence, R. I............... 1898 
FLEISHER, Epwarp, 539 4th St., Brooklyn, N. Y................. 1916 
Prercumr, Mrs. Mary E., Proctorsville, Vt........00...2000¢s+ 1898 
Fioyp, CHarLes Brenton, 382 Wolcott St., Auburndale, Mass...... 1916 
Foot, Dr. NATHAN CHANDLER, Readville, Mass................... 1916 


* Life Associate. 


XXV1 Associates. 


Footr, Miss F. Husrerta, 260 Valentine Lane, Yonkers, N. Y....... 1897 
Forses, Rautpx E., 328 Adams St., Milton, Mass.................. 1917 
Forpycez, Gro. L., 40 Lincoln Ave., Youngstown, Ohio.............. 1901 
Foster, Francis A., Edgartown, Mass:........................= 1918 
ROSTER, HRANK YD sy Elavertord. bash onan ene ener aie aioe 1916 
Fow.er, Capt. Freperick Hatz, 221 Kingsley Ave., Palo Alto, Cal.1892 
Fow.er, Henry W., Acad. Nat. Sciences, Philadelphia, Pa......... 1898 
Fox, Dr. Wiitu1am H., 1826 Jefferson Place, Washington, D. C...... 1883 
Francis, NATHANIEL A., 35 Davis Ave., Brookline, Mass........... 1913 
HRASHR DONALD OhNStoviaee Nive eee epee eae eee 1902 
FREEMAN, LEONARD, Jr., 1874 Elizabeth St., Denver, Colo.......... 1918 
FREEMAN, Miss Harriet E., 37 Union Park, Boston, Mass......... 1903 
Prencu, Cuartes H., Canton, Mass.) a... .6- 2 eos nk eee 1904 
HRENCH, Mrs: \@aas. Hi. Canton, Massy 4-24.25 0.8e ee. eee 1908 
FrotTHiIncHaAM, Mrs. RaAnpoupH, The Copley Plaza, Boston, Mass... ..1913 
Fry, Rev. Henry J., 66 Eagle Rock Way, Montclair, N. J......... 1916 
Furr, Henry C., 1348 Euclid St., Washington, D. C............. 1916 
Huiier, Mrs: i. Oris, Needham’ Massie. - 5-8 -aeeae een ae 1909 
GaBRIELSON, Ira N., Biological Survey, Washington, D. C......... 1912 
GanIER, ALBERT F., 1023 Villa St., Nashville, Tenn............... 1917 
GARDINER, CHARLES Barnes, 175 W. Main St., Norwalk, Ohio..... 1903 
Garst, Dr. JuLius, 29 Oread St., Worcester, Mass................. 1916 
GERTH, WALTER G., 392S Greenview Ave., Chicago, IIl............. 1918 
GERTKEN, Prof. SEVERIN, St. John’s University, Collegeville, Minn... 1912 
GriAnint, Cras, A} Polands"N:. ¥is0255 059.4 on Coe eee ee 1911 
Gipson, Lanepon, 5 Union St., Schenectady, N. Y................. 1887 
Giurman; -M. -frence, Banning, ‘Cali: o).cac0. 1 oscape oe eee 1907 
GuappIna, Mrs. Joun R., 30 Stimson Ave., Providence, R.I......... 1912 
GurEason, Mrs. C. H., 700 Madison Ave., 8S. E., Grand Rapids, Mich. 1917 
Gopinc, Epwarp N., 73 Tremont St., Boston, Mass............... 1916 
GoELITz, WALTER A., 1622 Judson Ave., Ravinia, Ill............... 1916 
Goisan, Lawis's., Box, 97, Prattville; Ala.¢. 2.4 00.20.40 2. ee eee 1912 
Goons, Mrs: F. B:, Billings St., Sharon, Mass:....:... 2... .eeee 1918 
GoopricH, Miss Juuiet T., 1210 Astor St., Chicago, Ill............. 1904 
Gorpon, Harry E., 168 Asbury St., Rochester, N. Y.............. 1911 
Gormuny, A; LIGNORI, -Arnprior, Ont:5.-0.< 20.225 sacs eee eee 1918 
Gorst, CHARLES C., 2 Arnold Circle, Cambridge, Mass............. 1916 
GouLp; -AtrRep, Me eMalden,) Massena nsec. aes oe 1916 
GourpyJosppHi li eArcadia,, Hace ei se herein een enna 1889 
Grand, Hons WM:.J2, Aledo. lle s. ete gee cic eee 1909 
GRANGER, WALTER, Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., New York, N. Y....... 1891 
Grant, Wm. W., 600 Castle St., Geneva, N. Y...............2..05- 1910 
Graves, Mrs. CHAruxs B., 4 Mercer St., New London, Conn....... 1905 
Gray, Grorcse M., Box 89, Woods Hole, Mass...................-. 1916 


GREEN, Horace Oaxss, 114 North Ave., Wakefield, Mass......... 1917 


Associates. Xxvil 


GREENOUGH, HEenry Voss, 1134 Beacon St., Brookline, Mass....... 1901 
GREENWOOD, FREDERICK, 1724 8th Ave., Spokane, Wash............. 1917 
Gaecory, Raymonp J., Princeton, Mass... 22.0. 2..2:42.0.5--+-5¢ 1917 
GREGORY, STEPHEN S., Jr., 2609 Hampden St., Chicago, Ill.......... 1916 
GRIFFIN, BERTRAM S., 22 Currier Ave., Haverhill, Mass............ 1917 
Cow, dba, 1dr Ciaras digs Ibslopnavorl IN| Sj ISln os oooaoegoa dc obuauch dono 1916 
laLAniiony, AMG Isl, WMboyioK WE Ibohehieooccbepscuccocooco doo Uae 1906 
Haaar, Lieut. J. A., 79 Washington Park, Newtonville, Mass....... 1914 
HAgmr, Grorce W.,.R. F.1D: 3, Peterboro, N. Hs... ......2..%. 6... 1917 
JELATI, IN, (Ciphoxerarsive, i Glhwoy ache ao Buen odo ce acoDeEonn occ 1917 
Hau, WM. WEBSTER, Jr., 70 W, 49th St., New York, N. Y.......... 1917 
FANDInY CHARTS! O- luewisbures Wi. Vales 5-20. neces ce cose oe 1916 
Hanxinson, Tuos. Leroy, 900 11th St., Charleston, Ill............ 1897 
Harpisty, ARTHUR H., 2326 First St., N. W., Washington, D. C.....1918 
VAR DON eins) einNRY: Wie WaltomeC@onms...525.4.000 066 oe cme cee 1905 
HARRINGTON, Raupu M., 328 W. 57th St., New York, N. Y......... 1915 
a ARRISw ARR YeuWwansas) @lbyelVlOns seuss censisic te 1s Sete eels cos ce orcucia 1911 
HARTSHORN, Harotp Ira, Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., New York, N. Y...1918 
Hany, Mrs ©... Vernon Hall Kinston N. C12... 2.2.0... 2.66.5 1918 
Harvey, JOHN L., 3 Moody St., Waltham, Mass.................. 1916 
HASKELL, Miss Sap1a, The Plymouth, Washington, D. C........... 1916 
HatHaway, Harry S8., Box 1466, Providence, R. I................. 1897 
EERE ler Oia iw ale INe Vivien. seers ih a otke «54 eel Sse vic sce 8's 1893 
EENACOCKs = Viisse LSTHmR. \WiYNCOLE, HRB. 5003s sie ss icine sae alsie ree ees 1918 
Finn AR TAU, Ele Winilers Place: "Ne YM... sees cess ce ese o® oe. 1888 
*HENDERSON, JOHN Brooks, 16 St. & Florida Ave., N. W., Washing- 

SOTIM SOMO EN Na Mts eres ia Niet oe een 8S ae eae Saale <i 1918 
HENDERSON, Judge Junius, 627 Pine St., Boulder, Colo............ 1903 
HENDERSON, WALTER C., 4727 13th St., N. W., Washington, D.C... .1917 
HeEnprickson, W. F., 276 Hillside Ave., Jamaica, N. Y............. 1885 
HENNESSEY, FRANK C., 457 Albert St., Ottawa, Canada............ 1914 
HERMANN, THEODORE L., 273 Neal Dow Ave., W. New Brighton, N.Y.1916 
Herrick, Francis H., Adelbert College, Cleveland, Ohio......:... 1913 
*HmRRICK, HAROLD, 123 William St., New York, N. Y............. 1905 
Herrick, Newso1p, L., War College, Newport, R. I............... 1913 
Herrick, N. LAwrence, Jr., War College, Newport, R. I........... 1917 
ERRICK Vrs: Weer.) Topsteld, Masse, . 2.0. cbs 2c fact (ee ae 1918 
Hewitt, Dr. C. Gorpon, Dept. Agric., Ottawa, Canada........... 1918 
Hieerns, A. W., Sandwich, Mass......:........... ean ih ee 1918 
Hitt, JamMes Haynes, Box 485, New London, Conn............... 1897 
Hi, Mrs. Toomas R., Box 491, Chautauqua, N. Y......:........ 1903 
Hincxiry, Geo. Lyman, Redwood Library, Newport, R. I......... 1912 


Hing, Prof. JAMEs Stewart, Ohio State Univ., Columbus, Ohio... .1899 


* Life Associate. 


XXVHli Associates. 


Hix, Grorce’ E., 100 W. 91st St.; New York, N.Y... 02.220. 1904 
HOLLAND, HAROLD May, Galesburg, Mle. ween ee 1910 
Houuanp, Dr. Witu1aM J., Carnegie Museum, Pittsburgh, Pa....... 1899 
Ho.uuisTeER, WARREN D., 2527 Albion St., Denver, Colo........... 1901 
Houtman, RaupH H., 481 Main St., Stoneham, Mass............... 1907 


Hott, Lieut. Ernest G., Biological Survey, Washington, D. C.....1911 
HonywIiL1L, ALBERT W., Jr., 210 Farmington Ave., Hartford, Conn..1907 


HorsFauu, Ropert Bruce, 1457 E. 18th St., Portland, Ore......... 1905 
Horcmkiss) Hiram An, (Hardino® Wass. ere nee «cere 1917 
Howuanp, R. H., 164 Wildwood Ave., Upper Montclair, N. J....... 1903 
Hoyt, Wintram H:, Box 425" Stamford, Connmis.... 22.5. <7 caesar 1907 
Hupparp, C. ANDRESEN, 1249 E. Harrison St., Portland, Ore....... 1916 
Husparp, Prof, Martan E., 15 Appleby Road, Wellesley, Mass... ..1916 
Huspparp, Raupn, 1038 University Ave., Boulder, Colo........../1916 
Huser, WuarTon, 225 St. Marks Sq., Philadelphia, Pa............. 1915 
Hunn, Joun T. SHARPLESS, 1218 Prospect Ave., Plainfield, N. J... ..1895 
Hunt, Ricoarp Montacte, Mus. Vert. Zool., Berkeley, Cal.......1918 
HusuHer, Mrs. GERTRUDE H., 821 So. Hope St., Los Angeles, Cal... .1918 
Hussey, Rouanp F., 1308 Ann St., Ann Arbor, Mich.............. 1915 
HypE MrsiS. E35 Maytield’ Tdaho.tn. .eea ee ee arene 1908 
INGERSOLL; ALBERT M., 908 F St., San Diego, Cal................. 1885 
Isnam, ‘CHAs, B.,.27 W.-67.5ts-New York; N.Y cece ere. «ane 1891 
Jackson, Dr. Hartury H. T., Biological Survey, Washington, D. C...1910 
JACKSON, Raupra W.; XR. Dob; Cambridge, Main ge aac tyae 1918 
Jackson, THomas H., 304 N. Franklin St., West Chester, Pa......... 1888 
Jaums, NORMAN; (Catonsville; Mido, . ii eae erectne ae oleae 1913 
JENKS, HAS: IW:,)bedtord,, Massie 1) ose einen ree oi caseetle 1912 
JENNEY, CHARLES F., 100 Gordon Ave., Hyde Park, Mass.......... 1905 
JENNINGS, Dr. Gro. H., Jewett City, Conn.....................- 1918 
JENNINGS, RicHaRD D., 129 Harrison St., East Orange, N. J......... 1913 
JENSEN, J. K., U.S. Indian School, Wahpeton, N. Dak............ 1912 
JEWEDD, ISTANDHY.G. Pendleton: sOrewss eerie ie aie 1906 
JOHNSON, FRANK E., 16 Amackassin Terrace, Yonkers, N. Y......... 1888 
Jounson, Mrs. Grace Pertis, City Library Asso., Springfield, Mass. . 1908 
Jones, Dr. LomBarp Carter, Falmouth, Mass:.................. 1917 
JONES, WiInLIAM F:, .NOpWAaAY,o lege ot. Sei eee an eee 1918 
JORDAN;,, Ay HH. Bi ioverett: Washes cs28 :..)0 sien hes ore) ts eee eee 1888 
Jump, Mrs. Epwin R., 97 Oakleigh Road, Newton, Mass........... 1910 
JUNKIN, Francis T. A., 2541 Michigan Ave., Chicago, Ill........... 1917 
Karprine, Guo. L. Battle: Mountam, Nev.4.2.....0. 2 2... ase 1918 
Keays, JAMES Epwarp, 328 St. George St., London, Ontario......... 1899 
KeuLoge, RALPH T., Silver City, No Mias. esos: an... 240 eee 1913 
Keuso, Dr. Joun E. H., Edgewood, Lower Arrow Lake, B. C....... 1915 
KernisTon, ALLAN, Vineyard Haven, Mass..................2.--+- 1917 


Kennepy, Dr. Harris, Readville; Massie. . 0. 220 .can ieee 1916 


Associates. XXIX 


Kann DouAnE HH. 47 West St., Rutland, Viti. .................+..- 1913 
Kent, Epwin C., 156 Broadway, New York, N. Y................ 1907 
KERMODE, FRANCIS, Provincial Museum, Victoria, B. C............ 1904 
ZKGIDDER ye NATHANIDO TH ea Malton. IMasss,as 924042064) agence. 1906 
Kizcore, WILLIAM, Jr., 132 Orlin Ave., 8. E., Minneapolis, Minn... . . 1906 
Kinessury, Freperick §., Univ. Club, Milwaukee, Wis........... 1916 
Kove: Lekoy,.20 E:. 84th St., New York, .N. ¥........0....00..5.. 1901 
Korxuam, Mrs. James W., 275 Maple St., Springfield, Mass........ 1904 
*KIRKHAM, STANTON D., 152 Howell St., Canandaigua, N. Y....... 1910 
oRKWwoOOD, HRANK ©. a. FD. 3, Monkton, Md:.5............... 1892 


KirrrepcE, Lieut. Josepn, Jr., Engineers, H. L. C., A. E. F., France 1910 
KLosEMAN, Miss JEsste E., Beal Hall, 20 Charlesgate W., Boston, 


WVIGSS Waren ee aren ee Aigo ee a Anca MT EG ow plage es 1909 
KwaEBEL, Ernest, 3707 Morrison St., Chevy Chase, D. C......... 1906 
Kwo.uHorr, FerpiInanp Wiuuiam, Amityville, N. Y............... 1890 
Kretzman, Prof. P. E., 1230 St. Anthony Ave., St. Paul, Minn...... 1913 
Ise, ANTHONY R., Bernardsville. N. Jict. cle eecs cco cese ss 1908 
Kuserr, Mrs. ANrHony R., Bernardsville, N. J..................... 1910 
user JOHN Dryprn, Bernardsville, N. J... ......0-.02c220 00s 1910 
Lacry, Howarp Grorcs, R. F. D. 1, Kerrville, Texas............ 1899 
Lapp, Harry STEPHEN, 71 Madison St., Seattle, Wash............. 1917 
LaDow, STANLEY V., 622 W. 113th St., New York, N. Y........... 1913 
Laine, Hamiuton M., 1277 E. 32nd St., Portland, Ore............ 1917 
Lamp, Cuas. R., 8 Highland St., Cambridge, Mass................ 1912 
LANCASHIRE, Mrs. JAMES Henry, 7 West 75th St., New York, N. Y.. .1909 
Lane, HerBert, Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., New York, N. Y.......... 1907 
Lanepon, Roy M., 709 N. 3rd Ave., Maywood, Ill................. 1918 
LarRaABEE, Prof. Austin P., Yankton College, Yankton, S. Dak...... 1918 
PATA ME OYE OTIeNt Nao’: 26 Penca sa cee ean SE os 2 1916 
LAURENT, Puiuip, 31 E. Mt. Airy Ave., Philadelphia, Pa........... 1902 
Lawson, Raupu, 88 Washington Sq. East, Salem, Mass............ 1917 
Lex, Joun C., Grove St., Wellesley, Mass....... tid ee a ae? 1917 
imistpr, Ciraupe W., 113 Osmun Place, Ithaca, N. Y............- 1916 
LENGERKE, JUSTUS VON, 211 Highland Ave., Orange, N. J........... 1907 
Lroprotp, Apo, 135 S. 14th St., Albuquerque, N. Mex............. 1916 
Lroprotp, NaTHAN, JR., 4754 Greenwood Ave., Chicago, IIl....... 1916 
innvanye Wits WinEran, AltonyBay, N. H..%,. 0... 262 2.. 6 aes «eben 1915 
Lewis, Harrison F., P. O. Box 6, Quebec, Canada................ 1912 
Lewis, Mrs. Herman E., 120 Grove St., Haverhill, Mass........... 1912 
Linpop, Ernest G., 94 Rhode I. Ave., Highland Park, Mich....... 1918 
Ligon, J. Stokuey, Box 131, Albuquerque, New Mexico....... Raney, 1912 
LINCOLN, FREDERICK CHARLES, 4150 Clay St., Denver, Colo......... 1910 
Linpsay, CLARENCE M., 213 Congress St., Brooklyn, N. Y....... 1918 


* Life Associate. 


XXX Associates. 


Linas, Gro. H., Richmond Hill, Cheadle, Cheshire, England....... 1913 
Lirrte, Luruer 2d, 1403 Garfield Ave., So. Pasadena, Cal....... . 1913 
Luoyp, Horss, 406 Queen St., Ottawa, Canada.................. 1916 
Lone, Cuas. Irvine, 180 5th Ave., Roselle, N. J................. 1918 
Lorp, THomsas Henry, Newington, N. H........................ 1916 
Lorne, Lieut. J; AtpEen,-Owego."N. 2 ee eee ee eee 1917 
Low, ErHELBERT I., 38 E. 64th St., New York, N. Y............... 1907 
Lucg, Mrs. Francis P., Box 216, Vineyard Haven, Mass........... 1912 
Lum, Hpwarp He. ChathamieNe dans. eee eee. 5. eee 1904 
Macxig, Dr. Witu1aM C., 54 Coolidge St., Brookline, Mass......... 1908 
Macriay, Marx W., Jr., 106 E. 85 St., New York, N. Y....4:......- 1905 
MacReyno.ps, GrorGe, 76 E. State St. Doylestown, Pa........... 1917 
Mappocx, Miss EMELINg, 6386 Drexel Road, Overbrook, Pa......... 1897 
Maer; (i: E59. Robinson St. Sharon. Pa... a eee 1902 
Main; Prank fs. Pittsiield,Masss 24-220 cne aenione tte s cee ee 1913 
MaitTLanD, Rosert L., 141 Broadway, New York, N. Y............. 1889 
Mann; ErrassP., Wilhamstown, Mass.5..2. Ss. cheeeeeee sen eee 1912 
MAPLES; Jams ‘©.,“Port ChesterwN. Yoo ....14 ue eee eee 1913 
Marsrn, Ricnarp MM: Woodstock; Vitus... ssesseeeee nee eee 1907 
Marcrres, Gro. M:, Sharon, ‘Conns. 5 a:n..nceee ae ee 1918 
Marks, Epwarp SIDNEY, 655 Kearney Ave., Arlington, N.J......... 1915 
Marrs, Mrs. Krinasmiut, 9 Commonwealth Ave., Boston, Mass... ..1903 
MaRsHALL, ALFRED, 17 8. Jefferson St., Chicago, Ill................ 1916 
*MARSHALL, Mrs. Etta M. O., New Salem, Mass................. 1912 
Marx, Capt. Epwarp J. F., 207 Burke St., Easton, Pa............. 1907 
MartHeEws, F. ScHUYLER, 17 Frost St., Cambridge, Mass............. 1917 
MattTern, Epwin S., 1042 Walnut St., Allentown, Pa............... 1912 
MattTern, WaLrTer I., 1042 Walnut St., Allentown, Pa............. 1916 
May, Dr: Jon .B., Cohasset; Mass. 2...:.2. cecum ak ance eee 1912 
MayFieLp, Dr. Grorcr R., Kissam Hall, Nashville, Tenn........... 1917 
McCurntock, NorMan, 504 Amberson Ave., Pittsburgh, Pa......... 1900 
McConneE.u, THomas S., 1813 Huey St., McKeesport, Pa.......... 1915 
McCook, Major Puiip J., 571 Park Ave., New York, N. Y......... 1895 
McGererver, Mytes StTanpisH, 60 Keene St., Lowell, Mass......... 1918 
McGraw, Harry A., 1805 15th Ave., Altoona, Pa................. 1917 
McGrew, ALBERT D., 5611 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, Pa.......... 1917 
McHara, Tuomas A., 725 Highland Ave., Boulder, Colo........... 1918 
McGHATTON, 4. Hi.) 163 Mell Sty Athens 3G ates oa eer 1917 
McILHENNY, Epwarp Avery, Avery Island, La................... 1894 


McIntire, Mrs. Hersert Bruce, 4 Garden St., Cambridge, Mass... 1908 
McLain, Ropert Barrp, Market and 12th St., Wheeling, W. Va... . .1893 
Mebane, JAmes Larmor, Jr; Garrison, Md.2)... 2. 2+. ee nee 1915 
McLean, Hon. Geo. P., 1520 New Hampshire Ave., Washington, D. C.1913 


* Life Associate, 


Associates. XXxI 


MeMirman: Mrs: \Giperr N., Gorham, No His. oo. a255 56h se es Ae 1902 
Meap, Mrs. E. M., 303 W. 84th St., New York, N. Y............... 1904 
Means, Cuas. J., 29 Marlborough St., Boston, Mass............... 1912 
Mencst, G. Henry, 739 Madison Ave., Reading, Pa............... 1913 
MnRRTAM PrN Yon sks Be Dam NewGons Ned sci sacs cieoeiee a - 1905 
MORRIE. ALBRRT i; Eranailton! Masse. 44. 265.6 dere lbys ésieve 6's sens 1912 
WRB RREGH hs Cee blinisdele, UM. s 22s Ayres athe eye son pists siete e siete rei eds 1917 
Merri, D. E., State College, New Mexico................--..-- 1913 
MERRILL, Harry, 316 State St., Bangor, Maine................... 1883 
MMESHON Welle Sacln awanVilCle. nrc cis seeie cena els siete clerereretclens 1905 
Metcatr, Lieut. F. P., Biological Survey, Washington, D. C........ 1917 
Metcatr, Z. P., A. & M. College, West Raleigh, N. C...%.......... 1913 
Meyer, Major G. Raups, 126 South, Ft. Monroe, Va............. 1913 
Ninn Miss: HMmLOISH, Wuenox, IMIASS.f e480. ketene c necnle as oa ci as Salat 1913 
Minns Nits HENRY A. Hingham, Mass). 925.2. 08.000 oss acs ee 1917 
Miter, Miss BerTHA Stuart, Box 2, Palisade, N.J............... 1915 
Miter, Miss Carriz Exxa, 36 Cottage St., Lewiston, Me........... 1918 
Miter, Cuas. W., Jaffna College, Jaffna, Ceylon................. 1909 


Miter, Mrs. ExisaBetu C. T., 1010 Euclid Ave., Cleveland, Ohio. . .1916 
Miter, Dr. Loyr Hotmss, State Normal School, Los Angeles, Cal.. .1918 


Minis pEIN@SHAS BsGesieark, COlO gic crac acctis oc) a ccivias’ a. claie oes s aie eraress 1916 
Miner, Leo D., 1836 Vernon St., N. W. Washington, D.C........... 1913 
MiTcHELL, CATHERINE ADAMs, Riverside, Ill....................-. 1911 
MircHeti, Mason, U.S. Consul, Apia, Samoa...................-. 1916 
MircHELL, Capt. WALTon I., 3210 E. Ist St., Wichita, Kan......... 1893 
Moopy, A. J., c/o Atna Life Ins. Co., Hartford, Conn............. 1918 
Moron, EUS? Iba}, (Chhyaveloi, Ibi, 56 coco soddeH boo cboanOOneae 1916 
Micon IDE, Watt, Inno, INRnews I, IG. oocedusoroscgodpomacar 1918 
Moorez, EvizaBeTH Putnam, North Anson, Me................... 1905 
MorcoM, G. FrREAN, 243 N. Coronado St., Los Angeles, Cal.......... 1886 
Mor ey, S. GRIswoLp, 2535 Etna St., Berkeley, Cal............... 1911 
Morrison, Atva, 3 Shady Hill Sq., Cambridge, Mass............. 1915 
IM(Ginsio, Jalan (Craven Jahbigoy, Olio), 6 54000nccooncsouemosodue bes 1912 
Mokrss, Cuas. B., 35 Greenleaf St., Bradford, Mass................. 1918 
Mosersey, Prof. Epwin Lincotn, Bowling Green, Ohio........... 1918 
MosuHER, FRANKLIN H., 17 Highland Ave., Melrose Highlands, Mass. . 1905 
Mousey, Wm. Henry, Hatley, Quebec, Canada.................. 1915 
Munro, J. A., Okanagan Landing, British Columbia, Canada........ 1913 
Morte, Lieut. O. J., 219 7th Ave. S, Moorhead, Minn............... 1913 
Myers, Mrs. Harriet W., 311 N. Ave. 66, Los Angeles, Cal......... 1906 
Myers, Miss Lucy F., 127 Academy St., Poughkeepsie, N. Y......... 1898 
INAUMAN SHED Box GOG, olgourmey., [lowas... 4094-8 eas. oe 1918 
NicuHots, L. Netson, N. Y. Public Library, New York, N. Y......... 1917 
Nims, Mrs. Lucius, 17 Union St., Greenfield, Mass................. 1913 


Nose, ELEANorR G., 66 Sparks St., Cambridge, Mass............... 1916 


XXXII Associates. 


Nosie, Ensign G. Kinastey, Mus. Comp. Zodlogy, Cambridge, 


IND SISSY. c5 beens Pio a ae ae Spec eue nore CRO eRe cae 1916 
Noxss, Dr. I. D., 1384 W. 55th St., Los Angeles, Cal................: 1915 
Notte, Rev. FEurx, St. Benedict’s College, Atchison, Kan........... 1903 
Norris, Epwarp, 301 W. Springfield Ave., Philadelphia, Pa......... 1916 
Norris, J. PARKER, Jr., 2122 Pine St., Philadelphia, Pa............. 1904 


Norton, Mrs. Carriz Morse, Faulkton, 8. Dak 
NoweE.ut, JoHN Rownanp, 300 Parkwood Boulev., Schenectady, 


a ae Ses err heats eee Read or Lach father Cos 1897 
OagprEn, Dr. Henry Vintna, 141 Wisconsin St., Milwaukee, Wis.... . . 1897 
OnDYS, HENRY SllversS pring MiGiny yh set ie toeeen feet ee t ie eee 1896 
Ouiver, Mrs. Epira Hotiick, 48 St. Nicholas Pl., New York, N. Y..1918 
*Oxiver, Dr. Henry Kemsie, 4 Newbury St., Boston, Mass......... 1900 
Ossorn, ARTHUR A., 58 Washington St., Peabody, Mass........... 1912 
@scoopE;, HARRY W.., 16) Elmist. Pittshield Ne Hey... sae eee 1918 
OTTEMILLER, HREn, 30)N. Pineists) York, bana ae ee eee te cee 1914 
OvERTON, DR: FRANK, ‘Patchogue; NY ..0.4) 02 ace eee ree 1909 
*OweEn, Miss JULIETTE AMELIA, 306 N. 9th St., St. Joseph, Mo...... 1897 
Packarp, WINTHROP, 1442 Washington St., Canton, Mass.......... 1917 
Paine, Aucustus G., Jr., 18 West 49th St., New York, N. Y......... 1886 
PAINE, CHARLES JACKSON, 705 Sears Bldg., Boston, Mass........... 1917 
Pautmer, Mrs. BertrHa Eviis, 1939 Biltmore St., N. W., Washington, 

DDS 3B: Pings car gee ote 6d Sues ode ee ee a ea eee 1918 
*Patmer, Miss ExvizABpeTu Day, 1741 8. Harvard Blv’d, Los Angeles, 

Ca EGe Fdis soled Wate ard vhs hd RGIS gees ee a ee ee 1918 
PALMER, KR. H.,- 222, Dietrich Blk; Pocatello, dase.) eee 1917 
Paumer, Dr. SamugL C., 712 Ogden Ave., Swarthmore, Pa......... 1899 
Patmer, Mrs. T. S., 1939 Biltmore St., Washington, D. C......... 1918 
PANGBURN, CLIFFORD H., 731 Elm St., New Haven, Conn........... 1907 
*PaRKER, Epwarp LupLow, Nashawtuc Rd., Concord, Mass... ..1916 
Parks, Mrs. F. R., 128 Crafts Rd., Chestnut Hill, Mass........... 1918 
Pau, Lucius H., 1485 North St., Rochester; N. Y............/.4.<- 1908 
Paxton, Mrs. Reaina A., 3135 Highland Pl., Cleveland Park, D. C.. .1917 
PEABODY, Rev.0b. Bs, Blue Rapids, Wantenia.nio ee cos eee 1903 
PEMBERTON, JOHN Roy, 803 Mayo Bldg., Tulsa, Okla............. 1918 
Prnarp, Tuos. E., 16 Norfolk Road, Arlington, Mass............... 1912 
PENFIELD, Miss ANNIE L., 155 Charles St., Boston, Mass........... 1912 
PENNELL, Miss EvizaBntH A. 8., 252 Maine St., Brunswick, Me.....1918 
Pepper, Lt. Col. Wm., 1811 Spruce St., Philadelphia, Pa............ 1911 
PEERING, Kesin, 26 Trullst., Boston; Mass... .0....525.940. 40. eee 1917 
Perkins, Dr. ANNA E., Gowanda Hospital, Collins, N. Y........... 1917 
Perkins, ARTHUR W., 21 High St., Farmington, Me............... 1915 
PERKINS, Drs Gros. Univ.of Vite Burlimoton Vitec s.r 1912 


* Life Associate. 


Associates. XXXlil 


Perry, Dr. Henry Josreru, 45 Bay State Road, Boston, Mass....... 1909 
RETERS yALBERT SO: lake Walson, Manns. 2.4.0... 2. cine see de ee 1908 
PHELPS, FRANK M., 212 E. 4th St., Elyria, Ohio................... 1912 
PHP neSmMirca Jean box 30) WNortotield Wlasseac.s dele sien ols: 1899 
PuHiLipP, Pariie B., 220 Broadway, New York, N. Y............... 1907 
PuHILiies, ALEXANDER H., 54 Hodge Road, Princeton, N.J........... 1891 
Puiiures, Cuas. Lincoun, 5 West Weir St., Taunton, Mass........... 1912 
Pierce, Wricht McEwen, Box 343, Claremont, Cal........./..... 1918 
PILSBURY, FRANK O., 1088 Main St., Walpole, Mass................. 1917 
Prncuot, GirrorD, 1617 Rhode Island Ave., Washington, D. C.....1910 
RiArrearons HpMunD,, Poughkeepsie; Nei Yo. a2)..cs6 sal ieee se ee 1917 
Por, Miss Maraarerra, 1204 N. Charles St., Baltimore, Md....... 1899 
Poor, Earu L., School Admin. Bldg., Reading, Pa............... 1916 
RORTER MLO UISMEe Suamftordss Conner sect n ee assum aoe 1893 
ROS IEETANI Sen sermandsvallesNendate eis ci cause Gare. 4. ease sles tee 1911 
POGTER JULIAN) Ke, 563) Bailey, St., Camden, IN: Jy.s..../...:6ss4- 1912 
PRAEGER, WILLIAM E., 421 Douglas Ave., Kalamazoo, Mich......... 1892 
Pratt, Hon. Gro. D., State Conservation Commission, Albany, N. Y.1917 
Pricr, Joon Henry, Crown W Ranch, Knowlton, Mont........... 1906 
IPigGioy, Warerouny, 1e%, 1S ID), Ws IDYonabawoyvey ANG WEG Copan soabe oes acer 1913 
PrircHARD, Mrs. F. A., 203 N. Court St., Medina, Ohio............ 1918 
ROVOM Wiel amWVICkI Ties: OWIOM meres Maite hr ence en ies « seaeiee ot 1916 


Purpy, Jamgs B., R. F. D. 4, Plymouth, Mich 
QuaRLES, Emmet Avucustus, 40 Davenport Ave., Stamford, Conn.. .1918 


QuiceLE, James C., 1410 M St., N. W., Washington, D.C........... 1915 
Raker, Miss Mary E., 1484 E. Sherman St., Portland, Ore......... 1918 
Ratuirr, Hon. Water S., R. R. B., Box 276, Richmond, Ind....... 1918 
RAVEN, SelENRY CUSHIER, Bayshore, Ni Ys. . 00.0 onc. ue.s. sees 3 1918 
VA SON CHAS a illeen Oxford assis ate aussie atieuciaeie els aarciele: 1917 
Rea, Paut M., Charleston Museum, Charleston, 8S. C.......... ele 
. Reacu, Dr. Arruur Linco, 39 Maple St., West Roxbury, Mass. .1896 
Reear, H. Severn, 1400 De Kalb St., Norristown, Pa............. 1916 
Rerun, James A. G., 6033 B Catherine St., Philadelphia, Pa......... 1901 
REICHENBERGER, Mrs. Victor M., Hotel Essex, New York, N. Y...1916 
Rew, Mrs. Bruce, Gulf Refinery, Port Arthur, Tex............... 1918 
Rett, Eemont Z., 3902 Pecos St., Denver, Colo................... 1917 
Ruoaps, CHarues J., National Reserve Bank, Philadelphia, Pa... ..1895 
Rice, JAMes Henry, Brick House Plantation, Wiggins, S. C........ 1910 
RICH VESR DMP moc cal Combiners, ant ccc ssteishs a chalet shane cee eter) cee 1913 
Ricwarps, Miss Harrier E., 36 Longwood Ave., Brookline, Mass. . 1900 
Ricuarpson, W. D., 4215 Prairie Ave., Chicago, Ill............... 1917 
RIDDLE, Robert, 21 W. Rogers Ave., Merchantville, N. J.......... 1916 
RIDDLE Oo HART, YM. ©. A.j/Chester; Pay i.i5.45.2 Sacra cies oy 00 ts 1916 
Riveway, Joun L., Geological Survey, Washington, D.C......... 1890 


Riker, CLARENCE B., 43 Scotland Road, South Orange, N. J....... 1885 


XXXIV Associates. 


Rossen, Miss Nancy P. H., 412 E. Merrimack St., Lowell, Mass.. .1917 


RoBBins; (CHarums: A;,, Onset, ‘Mass... 5 62-0 ascnesoee ee eee 1914 
Rospsins, Royau E., 61 Monmouth St., Brookline, Mass........... 1917 
Roperts, Witu1aAM Exy, 207 McKinley Ave., Lansdowne, Pa....... 1902 
Ropertson, Howarp, 157 8. Wilton Drive, Los Angeles, Cal....... 1911 
ROBINSON, ANTHONY Wi Flaverford: bcsscwer ee ceisce ccs ete 1903 
*Roagers, CHARLES H., Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., New York, N. Y....1904 
Rouanpb, Conrad K., 1208 De Kalb St., Norristown, Pa........... 1917 
ROOSEVELT, FRANKLIN DELANO, Hyde Park, N. Y................ 1896 
Ross; /GrorGueli= 23eWestiste Rutland Vice cetera 1904 
Ross, Dr. Lucretius H., 507 Main St., Bennington, Vt............ 1912 
Row ey, Joun, 42 Plaza Drive, Berkeley, Cal.................... 1889 
Rust) HEnry Js Coeur d7Alencitlid aq tenia en ieee ee 1918 
SAckHrT, (CLanmncn,. Rye; Ni Yoor 5... eee ee ee eee 1910 
Sacre, Henry M., Menands Road, Albany, N. Y.................. 1885 
Sampson, Miss Myra M., 30 Green St., Northampton, Mass....... 1918 
SANBORN, CoLin:C., Box 50;*HMivanston,, [lls 22 eae ne ae ee eee 1911 
Sanrens, Remi H., Carnegie Museum, Pittsburgh, Pa........... 1918 
SAUNDERS, ARETAS A., 143 East Ave., Norwalk, Conn.............. 1907 
Savacge, L. F., 1210 Jenny Lind St., McKeesport, Pa............... 1917 
ScHAEFER, Oscar FREDERICK, 66 Genesee St., Rochester, N. Y.....1916 
SCHABHR,| Uemdkjs Orta yn wel lle yy oe, sate eet eee ee 1918 
SCHENCK, REDERIC, Lenox Mass,:,:5...0- 41.0 eerie oe eee 1912 
SCHONNEGEL, JULIAN Extot, 92 Morningside Ave. E., New York, N. Y.1918 
Scuorcer, A. W., 2021 Kendall Ave., Madison, Wis............... 1913 
ScoviLLE, SAMUEL, JR., 415 Lancaster Ave., Haverford, Pa......... 1916 
ScuppER, BrapForp A., 146 W. 105th St., New York, N. Y......... 1917 
Sears, WILLIAM R., 73 Tremont St., Boston, Mass................ 1916 
SERRILL, WILLIAM. ehlavertord. basses (leer ete 1916 
SEWELL, Jas. W. JR., 2218 Patterson St., Nashville, Tenn........... 1918 
SHARPLES, ROBERT P:y West Chester, Pali a saa eee eee 1907 
Suaw, Henry S., 78 Cypress St., Newton Centre, Mass............. 1916 
SHaw, Wiuu1am T., 1000 Thatuna St., Pullman, Wash............. 1908 
Suna, Danret W., Catholic Univ. of Amer., Washington, D. C.....1917 
SHEARER, Dr. Amon R., Mont Belview; Mex. .---.-...-+5-- 0. senee 1905 
SHELDON, CHARLES, 16th & Webster Sts., Washington, D.C......... 1911 
SHELLEY, E5L., "Cottonwood: Walls) Kantes 7.54252 4. )n-). =e eee 1918 
SHELTON, Lieut. ALFRED C., Care Johnston Shelton Co., Dayton, 
OMI OS. hic yal tae aR ons Ci ec ne fads Oconee <r 1911 
SHIRLEY, (GARLAND: Li) Dayton; Va.eoe see sco eae eee 1916 
SHIRLEY, Lester L., 604 So. 10th St., Vincennes, Ind............... 1917 
SHOEMAKER, CLARENCE R., 3116 P St., Washington, D.C........... 1910 
SHOEMAKER, Hunry W. MckHihattan Range. oa. oc 1640s 1912 


* Life Associate. 


Associates. XXXV 


SHOFFNER, CHARLES P., 2011 Wallace St., Philadelphia, Pa......... 1915 
SHROSBREE, GEORGE, Public Museum, Milwaukee, Wis............ 1899 
SrnmiAn, ©. P.) 220 Salinas St., Salinas, Cal... 2..50..5..54....- 1915 
SinsBEE, THomas, 115 Marlborough St., Boston, Mass............. 1916 
SunynRN MOHN) Ave Aberdeen, “Midi s.25 oc) cet. aS cs sedate. takes 1918 
Stmmons, Geo. Finuay, Rice Institute, Houston, Texas........... 1910 
SKINNER View be oummervilen (Si Coe. fakin s ocnate tat veces ses 1916 
SmitH, AusTIn PavL, 2102 E. 83d St., Cleveland, Ohio............ 1911 
Smitu, Rev. Francis Curtis, 22 Jewett Pl., Utica, N. Y............. 1903 
Smiru, Prof. Frank, 913 West California Ave., Urbana, Ill......... 1909 
SmitH, Horace G., 2918 Lafayette St., Denver, Colo........... 1888 
Smitu, Lestrer W., 60 Cottage St., Meriden, Conn................ 1916 
SmirH, Naprer, 46 Cétés des Neiges Road, Montreal, Canada...... 1915 


SmitH, Mrs. Wauuis C., 525 N. Michigan Ave., Saginaw, W.S., Mich.1916 
SmytH, Prof. Etuison A., Jr., Polytechnic Inst., Blacksburg, Va... ..1892 


SnypER, WiLL Epwin, 226 First St., Beaver Dam, Wis............. 1895 
Soper, JosepH Dewey, R. D. 2, Preston, Ont., Camada............ 1918 
SouLE, CAROLINE Gray, 187 Walnut St., Brookline, Mass........... 1917 
SpeELMAN, Henry M., 48 Brewster St., Cambridge, Mass........... 1911 
Spencer, Miss CLEMENTINA S., Dept. of Zodlogy, Coe College, Cedar 
VAIS pall Ow sterner ey nena ae ats, Mee eerie VAIS Aw AES AR RRS 1917 
Sranwoop, Miss CorpELIA JoHNSON, Ellsworth, Me.............. 1909 
STAPLETON, RicHARD, 219 High St., Holyoke, Mass............... 1916 
STEELE, Henry B., 4530 Drexel Boulevard, Chicago, Ill............ 1917 
SrerHens, T. C., Morningside College, Sioux City, Iowa.......... 1909 
SrppHenson, Mrs. Jessz, Monte Vista, Colo..................... 1918 
SLIRVENS MOT ahs boxalod6. Wincolmy Nebs.i...., 4 secs es: 1908 
Stewart, Mrs. Cecit, 451 Beacon St., Boston, Mass.............. 1917 
Stites, Epear C., 345 Main St., West Haven, Conn............... 1907 
Stimson, Dr. ArtHUR M., Raymond St., Chevy Chase, Md....... 1917 


STODDARD, HERBERT Lex, Field Museum Nat. Hist., Chicago, II]... .1912 
Storer, Lieut. Tracy Irwin, Mus. Vert. Zodlogy, Berkeley, Cal... .1916 


Srraw, Mrs. Herman F., 607 Chestnut St., Manchester, N. H....... 1916 
STREET. LNTCHHR, beverly, IN. Ji. ccc hd sce’ «+ olen sass oe 1908 
STRUTHERS, Rev. Autrrep L., Townsend, Mass................... 1918 
Stuart, Frank A., 118 Green St., Marshall, Mich................ 1915 
Stuart, Gro. H., 3rd, 923 Clinton St., Philadelphia, Pa........:... 1913 
STURGIS 9. WARREN, Groton, Mass.....% . 0.2 o0c.sesq0mesaseee a 1910 
STURTEVANT, Epwarp, St. George’s School, Newport, R. I......... 1896 
Suapen, ArTHUR W., 35 Concord St., Hartford, Conn.............. 1913 
Swain, Jonn Merron, Box 528, Farmington, Me................. 1899 
Sweeney, J. A., Forest Service, Halsey, Neb..................0:. 1916 
Swenk, Myron H., 3028 Starr St., Lincoln, Neb.................. 1904 
TATNALL, SAMUEL A., 503 Hansberry St., Philadelphia, Pa......... 1916 


TayLor, ALEXANDER R., 1410 Washington St., Columbia, 8. C....... 1907 


XXXV1 Associates. 


Taytor, Horace, 3 Netherlands Rd., Brookline, Mass............. 1917 
Taytor, Lionet E., Bankhead, Kelowna, B. C...............:... 1913 
Taytor, Dr. WALTER P., 1428 Perry Place, N. W., Washington, D. C.1916 
TayLor, WARNER, 419 Sterling Court, Madison, Wis.............. 1916 
TERRILL, Lewis Mcl., 44 Stanley Ave., St. Lambert, Quebec....... 1907 
Tuomas, Miss Emity Hinps, Bryn Mawr, Pa...................-. 1901 
Tuompson, J. WaucotTt, 527 East First South St., Salt Lake City, 
Witalh sya g ease e ocean ais ee aia ae ee ge 1916 
THORNE, GERALD, 334 N. 5 E. St., Logan, Utah.................. 1917 
Tuorns, Miss Jutta A., care Dr. D. H. Hill, Raleigh, N.C.......... 1916 
Titton, Miss MaBet Tuurston, Vineyard Haven, Mass......... 1918 
TINnKER, ALMERIN D., 631 Haven Ave., Ann Arbor, Mich............ 1907 
Towner, Miss ANNIE FLorencr, Topsfield, Mass................. 1918 
TOWNSHEND, Henry Horcuxiss, 69 Church St., New Haven, Conn...1915 
Trecanza, A. O., 614 E. 6th St., Salt Lake City, Utah............. 1906 
TrorrTer, WILLIAM Henry, 36 N. Front St., Philadelphia, Pa....... 1899 
TRUESDELL, JoHN F., 230 Post Office Bldg., Denver, Colo......... 1918 
TRULL, Harry S8., 317 East 196th St., New York, N. Y........... 1917 
-ERUMBELL,’ Js El, Plamvalle, Conn, .8. a eee eee eee ee 1907 
TupDBURY, WARREN C., 925 Modoc St., Berkeley, Cal....:.......... 1903 
Turriy, Henry EMpErson, Lake Forest, Mle... eee 1909 
ARWECHRNLE.) AgiMn Wat. “All askal tus apes) se .ua ck Vente neni eet ae ge eae 1918 
iin OuN G.,, ‘Turlock; Calis. -ic. ¢aai.0 one eae one ee 1912 
Urrorp, Dr. EuGENE U., 221 Central St., Auburndale, Mass......... 1918 
UnpERWoop, Wm. Lyman, Mass. Inst. of Tech., Cambridge, Mass. 1900 
VALENTINE, Miss Anna J.,; Bellefonte, Pa....................0... 1905 
VALLANDINGHAM, Miss Karig, 811 Highland Ave., Carrollton, Ky...1918 
Van CortLaAnpT, Miss ANNE 8., Croton-on-Hudson, N. Y.......... 1895 
*VANDERGRIFT, S. H., 311 Riggs Bldg., Washington, D. C........... 1918 
Van Name, WILLARD G., Am. Mus. Nat. History, New York, N. Y...1900 
VeTTeR, Dr. CHARLES, 67 West 12th St., New York, N. Y............ 1898 
VrereEcH, Henry L., Biological Survey, Washington, D. C.......... 1916 
VisHER, Dr. STEPHEN S., Univ. Indiana, Bloomington, Ind......... 1904 
Voruims, Dr. Cuas. Tl Unive of Ariz, MucsonsvArizes 2). oe 1918 
WapswortH, CLARENCE S8., 27 Washington St., Middletown, Conn.. .1906 
Waker, Hevest’PiWrangell) Alaska ou) jaa se ee 1918 
WaALKur, GEowk.,”R..D2 3.) Murray,> Utah. sass serie ere 1909 
Watuaceg, Cuas. R., 69 Columbus Ave., Delaware, Ohio........... 1913 
WALLACE, JAMES S., 12 Wellington St., E., Toronto, Ontario........ 1907 
Watter, Dr. HERBERT E., 67 Oriole Ave., Providence, R. I......... 1901 
Waurnrs, PRANK, 125° 23rd’ St., Himburst; NoY.c...... 9... eae 1902 
Warp, Frank H., 18 Grove Place, Rochester, N. Y............... 1908 
Warp, Henry L., 520 Lake Drive, Milwaukee, Wis............... 1906 


Warner, Epwarp P., Mass. Inst. of Technology, Cambridge, Mass. .1910 
Watson, JAMES D., 6042 Harper Ave., Chicago, Ill................ 1917 


Associates. XXXVI 


WeBsER, J. A., Moore and Grand Aves., Leonia, N.J............... 1907 
Wesster, Dr. Grorcs A., 419 Boylston St., Boston, Mass......... 1916 
Wesster, Mrs. JENNIE E. B., 44 East 23rd St., New York, N. Y....1917 
Weeks, Rev. LeRoy Titus; Emmetsburg, lowa.................. 1918 
WEIsEMAN, T. WALTER, 226 Beaver Road, Emsworth, Pa.......... 1916 
WEISER, CHARLES S., 105 W. Springettsbury Ave., York, Pa........ 1916 
*WELLMAN, GorDON B., 54 W. Beltran St., Malden, Mass.......... 1908 
Weormorn, Mrs. Epmunp H., Babylon, N. Y.:....5 04... 20662058 1902 
Weyaanpt, Dr. CorneEttius, 6635 Wissahickon Ave., Philadelphia, Pa.1907 
VV HAR TON MV LnTAMn De Groton, MASS. 2c seis ciao eerie cle eee 1907 
WHEELER, JOHN B., East Templeton, Mass.....................- 1917 
WHEELER, Mrs. Jas. W., 403 15th Ave., N. Seattle, Wash......... 1918 
Wuirte, Francis Bracu, St. Paul’s School, Concord, N. H.......... 1891 
Wuitr, Greorce R., Dead Letter Office, Ottawa, Canada.......... 1903 
WHET Wels L4 Wall St. New Vork,oN. Yond tcs0c 0% 0. sten ode ee 1902 
WHITTLE, CHARLES L., 10 Channing St., Cambridge, Mass......... 1916 


NVrerreary Mirss i. G. beterboro; Ne Ela) :2. 28 Sid aa sie 2 5a se dee aise 
WieGmann, Dr. WitiiaM Henry, 436 East 5th St., New York, N. Y.. .1916 


Wizzur, Appison P., 60 Gibson St., Canandaigua, N. Y........... 1895 
Witcox, Capt. T. Ferpinanp, 118 E. 54th St., New York, N. Y.....1895 
Wiey, Miss Lena Carnarine, Buckland, Mass................... 1918 
WILLARD, BerTEL G., 1619 Massachusetts Ave., Cambridge, Mass... 1906 
WinnaRD  sHRANIC ©. HarmingdaillewiN. Yorno.....sscce- ase ceases 1909 
Wiutucox, Prof. M. A., 63 Oakwood Road, Newtonville, Mass....... 1913 
Wiuiams, Miss Breuue, Colonia Hotel, Columbia, S. C............ 1915 
WILuIAMs, Enrique Ruiz, Reporto Almendarez, Marianao, Cuba... .1918 
WiiaMs, Rosert 8., N. Y. Botanical Gardens, New York, N. Y.. .1888 
WV aS ON 1B, 18345 JETRO, Iba, ooh asouonucenodcds coded oeude 1900 
Wuttrs, Miss Ciara L., 72 Main St., Framingham Center, Mass... ..1915 
Witmot, NeEuson E., 24 New St., West Haven, Conn.............. 1916 
Wi1son, Mrs. E. S., 2 Clarendon Ave., Detroit, Mich.............. 1917 
Wine, DeWirt C., 5344 Dorchester Ave., Chicago, IIl............. 1913 
WinGarD, Topp ALBERT, 1829 Park Rd., Washington, D. C....... 1918 
Wotre, Patrick R., 1129 Tinton Ave., New York, N. Y........... 1917 
Woop, Lieut. Col. Casry A., 7 W. Madison St., Chicago, Ill......... 1917 
Woop, Grores B., 129 8. 18th St., Philadelphia, Pa......:....-... 1916 
Woon Mrs. N:P.) Northfield;) Mase. 5 e065 o. oee nce coe aa oles: 1917 


Woop, Netson R., Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D. C.....1895 
Wooprtrr, FRANK M., Acad. of Sciences, Lincoln Park, Chicago, IIl.. 1894 


Wooprturr, Lewis B., 14 E. 68th St., New York, N. Y............. 1886 
Woopwarp, Dr. LEMUEL, 52 Pearl St., Worcester, Mass........... 1917 
Worcester, Mrs. AtFreD J., 314 Bacon St., Waltham, Mass....... 1908 
Wricat, Dr. ALBERT H., Cayuga Heights, Ithaca, N. Y............ 1906_ 


* Life Associate. 


XXXVI Deceased Members. 


Wricat, Frank S., 14 Cayuga St., Auburn, N. Y................. 1917 
Wricut, Miss Harrier H., 1637 Gratiot Ave., Saginaw, W.S., Mich. 1907 
Wricut, Horace Winstow, 107 Pinckney St., Boston, Mass....... 1902 
Wyman, Luruer E., 3927 Wisconsin St., Los Angeles, Cal.......... 1907 
Youne, Rev. Cuaas. Jonn, Brighton, Ont., Canada................ 1918 
Younc, Major Joun P., 1510 5th Ave., Youngstown, Ohio......... 1911 


ZIMMER, J. T., Dept. of Agriculture, Port Moresby, British Papua. . . 1908 


DECEASED MEMBERS. 


FELLOWS. 

Date of Death 
ALDRICH + CHARTMSS 0 oo cata neon! ec ena ro ee eee March 8, 1908 
BAIED, OPENCER@EULLERTON.. 400.0 a04 4.2 oats Aug. 19, 1887 
Brau, FosteER ELLENBOROUGH LASCELLES...............-- Oct. 1, 1916 
DUNDIRG, /CHAREMS LUMIE .5:.¢.6 50 eelesie shal 5 ie eae ee Feb. 4, 1897 
COOKE, WELLS {WOODBEIDGH a3. ove. te eat ee oe March 30, 1916 
COURS. WLTIOTI (2) «1.0 \los oie cet ete ea ean ene Dec. 25, 1899 
ELIOT: DANTE CUR AUD: te., ee enn ee Dec. 22, 1915 
Goss; (NATHANIEL OLTICKNEY 4054 brare eee See ir March 10, 1891 
HOLDER; «J OSHPH | BASSI tin, sata: eit eee Feb. 28, 1888 
JRENRUAS, JOHN AMORY-s ¢-.ssiccs guide ain ours ns ties See ee March 26, 1892 
Noli WRATIH, LHOMAS a. sie pet oe 2 ate ee Jan. 31, 1903 
MEARNS, EDGAR AUMXANDER: fac! okie clesiee ou hoc eine Noy. 1, 1916 
MERRELE,- JAMES. MCUSHING Sc. ae since wee cate: Oct. 27, 1902 
PouRDIn; HENRY AUGUSIUS.- = scnete- eee Che see March 29, 1911 
SENNET?, GEORGE BURRITT.... 12.0. a00, acne eee March 18, 1900 
TROMBULL, “GURDONE «cites dis saseoe ie ac Se ee Dec. 28, 1903 
WHEATON: SlOHN SMIAYNARD: Jf c,. 5c .5,cha sacs ear es Jan. 28, 1887 

RetTIRED FELLOWS. 

BHLDING, (LYMAN? Va co Doc cio ee eh adn ytoeio caret ete eet Nov. 22, 1917 
Gini, THRODORE, NICHOLAS: — kam Ae ie ee nae Sept. 25, 1914 
Honorary FELLOWS. 

BEANEKORD Sa VVILLIAM, InHONASH yamine renee e rare June 23, 1905 
BARBOZA DU) BOCAGH; JOSH) VICENTE a. e ne ee ieee July —, 1908 


* Presidents of A. O. U. 


Deceased Members. 
IB ERENPS CH MPLVANSMV.OND oc sites Sele ence cis cee silane Byers meiede ete. Feb. 27, 
BURMBEISTER, KARL HERMANN KONRAD..............005: May 1, 
(CUTE oS TS dha is Pd D0) 0 = eg Feb. 20, 
[DROSS oF) 18 fois cs eal 10) 0 of ean Re ee Nov. 28, 
HINSCHy HRINDRICH THmRMANN OTTOR. ose secs. se. oss: Jan. 31, 
(CrAmRary LMOTNIRT CHE Ryo -s,chy one ci vasigy ele so. a) ke et eres acces orane aerate as Jan. 1 
CIlGHTORIMPMNRICOME GEYER! ys. ssc see oeeineeete ceric Dec. 16, 
GopMAN, PREDERICK. DUCANE. 2... 0.4054 sae dees eb elvess Feb. 9, 
GUNDLACH, JOHANNES CHRISTOPHER............00.000: March 17, 
ME OTE ELVEN) OPIN ERIN YAr5 2 2) olny 2c x 5/9 vyavl snare Ole SieietarncSln es April 20, 
HARTLAUB;, [MARL JOHANN] GUSTAV. . 22... sc00ccqee0-50- Nov. 20, 
Harvit-Brown, JOHN ALEXANDER.............2..+202: July 26, 
RGM AUTZ AN C)CTAVVAIN ica e «1a s/e) sherri os 6 sore vvehe ee we Sek July 31, 
Ux Yew HOMAGSELMNERYisysflsicios asi: aera} facies Se aces 8h June 29, 
ERROR SEER DINAND 2:5, 428 <) Aaa sets his obealee ois ss o's goatee’ « Sept. 15, 
LAWRENCE, GEORGE NEWBOLD............02--000cee8 Jan. 17, 
MinvER ADOLE ISMRNHARD 5.25 s,s oie so ce ecie boss 6S SS ise aoe Feb. 5, 
MitNE-HDWARDS, ALPHONSE.............0.0c0cececeee: April 21, 
iN RON RADI D a eats ava, stag ele otis miwiie areta soa oe ea as see June 7, 
EZAREGH Ra VV LIE VANE OUD CEIBIN yam ei eeiisiereis erste ne Gre oe ae he tiie July 3, 
BEEZ AU GUSTE ViONM ya scissor re aches Bic-erei sto witi's Sept. 2, 
SMV EN OBER Tete x cae SaeNitcje ee se aa eG. Ais ele k 2% ane, arene s June 1, 
SAUNDERS MET OWZARD eneirseseie tise Site eciete fle duolboe a ieie se Sisvere Oct. 20, 
SCHUEMNGH UE WEMOR MANN ons sus cetstie sees oe claiaie o ae eee os Jans a7, 
SCIENEOR ew PAIGIP Mu TL EY: ae.< yc os ae bo olaelet tele cas 6% June 27, 
SEH BOHMp EIEN R Warten eee sole ose na ics clevhae aenerowe le eke Se Nov. 26, 
SHARPE RICHARD) BOWDLER: we vos sh cess nes cs smo Dec. 25, 
TACZANOWSKI, LADISLAS [CASIMIROVICH]................. dni, ILZ/, 
WAETACH PAL ERED! LUSSHLE secre dec societies ones ates Nov. 7, 
CoRRESPONDING FELLOWS. 
ALTUM, JOHANN BERNARD THEODOR...............2.000: Feb. 1, 
FENDERS GN pO ORIN seen rice aia s Sanya aa es Chie k & steiajsie sia vie Aug. 15, 
BALpAMUS, AUGUSTE) KARE KDUARD:...5.0.-.s0cn-s.000- Oct. 30, 
BG AKISTON OH OMASEVW RIGHT ar serps slecss siecle cosisys © «ciche ae Oct., 15; 
BiAsrus, [PAUL HeINRIcH] RUDOLPH..................-- Sept. 21, 
Buasrus, WILHELM AuGuUsT HBINRICH.................-- May 31, 
Boepanow, Mopmst-NIKOLAEBVICH.................2:- March 16, 
ISROOKS mV ULEDAM ID WIN, 0 o.a cao ale i-sjac0 ais) essyere ol eteverw wince Jan. 18, 
SRN VY ATATIOR DeRORC [RG.jc/a c/s sss cfef 2 4 «x aices esis epeete eens May 21, 
IS UGE a VV PAU CER I ANWR Vonks) cre) ors lls ey airchara © Giglensioiels cucherstione July 19, 
BUTE BE DWARDEAR THUR.) jects scicisulam cciselsetien seer April 16, 
CORTE TD PROBE erecta woot hey oc van oeta ene eens oi Jan. 27, 


1900 
1900 
1893 
1891 
1907 
1912 
1888 
1899 
1905 
1906 
1916 
1913 


xl Deceased Members. 


COOPER, . JAMES “GRAHAM ...c0d:banie ie oracle eter tne cactecncta © July 19, 
CORDDAUX) 5 JOHN: 5, suveremiess eee ne eee ree Aug. 1, 
DAVID ARMAND 251 /e Mosier aS tcl Lo ee ute Ee Nov. 10, 
Dwens,: ALM wD | 55) Fh sire ar ckoey taht encore ene Jan. 4, 
IBA TIO, VICTOR cate tance ORO eee ce March 19, 
GIRTANNER, GEORG -ALBERT.(.. |. ee eee eee ee eae June 4, 
GoBnLpr \, Ext AUGUST. iui eee ee ee July 5, 
FAAS JOHANN, HRANZ JULIUS! VON ona cisiseis ene ici aere een: Aug. 16, 
ERA GET ED WARD a ae a) Aes rae March 19, 
HAYEK GUSTAVAL IDLER VON: 40 28 sake ee tee ea cee Jan. 9, 
PLE R MAN CODTON SSR yc tlens ecco aes 8 cose ee nee eee Dec. 27, 
LOTUS SEER Sas cin ates ata tae Roe a eee eee Feb. 21, 
HoMEYER, EUGEN FERDINAND VON............000eeeeees May 31, 
EN UDSEN: 2 VATDEMARY chart fete ath eisai at Ne se Jan. 8, 
KRUKENBERG, CARL FRIEDRICH WILHELM................ Feb. 18, 
LAVARD, (EDGARS LIBOPORD aa s4.4co eos cant c Aon ee Jameel 
Emeqn: WiELTAM. VINCENT. {21.2015 2000s em Mar. 25, 
LEVERKUBN PAUL icc Sesser s dake dane tiie Ae A Dec. 5, 
Litrorp, Lorp (THomaAs LyTTLETON Powys).............. June 17, 
MALMGREN PANDERS JOHAN: 00 514 Roos eae cee ee April 12, 
MARSCHALL, “AUGUST: FRIEDRICH’ . 5,2... +200 ee see Oct. 11, 
MIDDENDORFF, ALEXANDER THEODOROVICH.............. Jan. 28, 
Mosusisovics von Mossvar, FeLtx Grorag HERMANN Aveust.Aug. 27, 
INOR TH FATEREDY JOHN ae Aeon eree eee eae May 6, 
OATHS UGENE WiLLTAN. | 2... eb scacsian eee Soman eee Nov. 16, 
OvusTaLet, [Jean Fréipiric] Eminn...................-- Oct. 23, 
PHILIPPS RODOLE VAMANDUS iA ies wat sa ne errr July 23, 
PRIEVALSKY,. NICOLAS MICHAHLOVICH. ..).-.4..400 00eeee Nov. 1, 
PRENTISS, SO ANTHT WESTER asaniac 6c ees bee Noy. 19, 
PRYBR, ECARR Y= JAMES STOVIN 2s. sic.5 22 2s ee ee ee Feb. 17, 
RavpE, GusTAV FERDINAND RICHARD VON............-- March 15, 
RAMSAY EDWARD “PEBRSON sts. octslaniou nck ee Dec. 16, 
SCHRENCK sIHOPOLD VON cnc sae eee ee ee ele Jan. 20, 
Séiys-Lonecuamps, MicHet EDMOND DE................ Dec. 11, 
SEVERTZOW, NicoLAS ALEKSYEVICH..............ecees0e: Feb. 8, 
SHELLEY, GEORGE HLRNEST oie uiee nat poy dene eeeeine Noy. 29, 
STEVENSON: SELON Y ya; -ee ferry he ey eR ee Aug. 18, 
‘TRIistTRAM, JHNRY BARKWR.<hee «eee abe oe cane nee March 8, 
WHARTON; (HRONRY, (PL HORNTON @ ecaeecion eiiae-sionctors erste Sept. —, 
WoopHousE, SAMUEL WASHINGTON.............0.0005- Oct. 28, 
MEMBERS 
BAGGSNNGBERD 438 oe ia OE Oe a ee July 12, 
BROWN; S HIERBERTARE SEO Oe OR ter ore May 12, 


CAMERON: LIWEN} SOMMRLED/o-6e0 0 acs eel ea ear May 25, 


1902 
1899 
1900 
1910 
1906 
1907 
1917 
1887 
1895 
1911 
1914 
1902 
1889 
1898 
1889 
1900 
1918 
1905 
1896 
1897 
1887' 
1894 
1897 
1917 
1911 
1905 
1904 
1888 
1899 
1888 
1903 
1916 
1894 
1900 
1885 
1910 
1888 
1906 
1895 
1904 


1915 
1913 
1915 


Deceased Members. 


JEVASNUINITIN AMIE) OEUNT Set chews oi! cvalcnarn <tr Mertacencnitscnstaics Suelehe cr aitegsvaionsy ok June 20, 
HE IOA maw VAIN EA Ygnteparey casts ots. s) <boyisl sb atevensial o eevtenesehatabaene te ae niet stats. o Dee. 9, 
ARID VA VIS PMR OW LGD 6c 15.0) cl cucls eile fw we lays)» aiahorens olet sae Oct. 22, 
RCRTEGHT AOR AGNVIEL LIS io Ao. c ie oe oid cisineue a eicysiotsiateileyele creme. oe Nov. 11, 
Mitier, Ottve THorneE (Mrs. Harriet Mann Miller)....Dec. 25, 
PENNOCK, CHARLES JOHN (disappeared)...............-+ May 15, 
IVAGEH WILLTAM DWGRANGE. . (2 6cs0 csc ds cleve wields ed July 8, 
PRORR EY eR ADRORD as, :,. Sa locsis leo eis.s\ tho Se creversn eua/eesetie ote « Oct. 7, 
EIA NUANAS CHDARTMS: OPIS. 58 5. acs Saas cigs the fs savers Belem Dec. 6, 
ASSOCIATES. 
ADAMS CHAREMS | ERAN GIGS ja: ctsleirsis sb cise sis'@ svelloes «ole May 20, 
APRENMOHARLNS SLOVIER: 5). 2 ctatreeet) cs aie ss cvs ooh « «alt Oct. 15, 
PRON ISES SPP LUEE AUN IGG. VA ATEGAINTEN an .is'0) iicdeliai 9 ai olishe oie sh! ehia.cetalless (0) aia, Feb. 6, 
ATKINS MAR MON) ALBROG ciao scp else cies fore ave: +01 steitale oe 4eers May 19, 
AVR Yoo WV RELTAN (CUSHMAN. 20,14 c.cc.6cceices oes sinegeles March 11, 
BATERYA BERT Ein AT: De Ae amarante cae cee eigiesaretars <nlers June 22, 
TEATaea aie: CO}e UTR BTaTS}g] Saye eae ae ae ; 
yume), jokes? JShontusi Sogn ooouodoocs ocean ae umm meS Cor June 19, 
BANKS «Viiss MARTHA (BURR :.5)5/¢.5 elec \au)a sols sis" olelole wie oar Dec, 13, 
BARnOWe) CHESIMR See ee ee shat hic tS Ai Skinless dom Re ace « Nov. 6, 
HEATED ENR Cr OR GB yearns sede havens eo lepet et of elahelersicticnc ue dersoehaiia ye-aicl sin < Feb. 16, 
Baur, Grore [HERMANN Cart Lupwic]................ June 25, 
BEckHAn CHARLES: WICKLIFME . 2 .)s sls citedioc ces os clh ea June 8, 
BORER el) GA GING) Prcsttyolscorsiaieve) ote eyeretsncietie: oeteke ea 2.c" clare Feb. 11, 
BEETS Se NORMAN SD WiVWRLTars -faiesisie ots lasevelersteysiel here.) 01 cus el greet May 21, 
ES TrTsae © HAR IAIS 9,7 ilhc ce ay an tie tree ales foaleh hte eee oases A April 14, 
BIRT we RAN CIS vl OSHPH sata sa cies leietsia stes sraicieh ae sie o =< June 28, 
BOARDMAN. | GHORGE AUGUSTUS: © eu ciclers. seit anes sea ae os Jan. 11, 
BODINE SD ONAEDSONE neisiersmncrseie sie ieinenieiete clove eters stare Aug. 26, 
IB OUUES MALERININIKes es 2, Saran, Sis A eso sheleves a6 SA SHR Soe evs Sea ene Jane 0} 
BRACKE DIME HOSTER AELODGES's i yehe oie el ietaselclal heveiois «| exe oereis a Jano; 
BRANT YS I VVIILLEAM Gh ORBACRE) )) aries. cle viele «ccs Sele «ells 1- Sept. 9, 
BRERSE a WV TLLTAM ZAWIREINGH 1.142 .fos) srs 2 elokee «mle lees Deca. 
IBEENINGHR a GHORGHVHRANK. [3 .0.0. - Saison tails see Dec. 3, 
IBRENNANAE © ARTS EM Meynteaen al sis sous, esosese cugidaea le Se omer Mar. 21, 
BRO Kew OOULSWIDSTEN fo tc/ ale cine eins evecehctonsies dleaa) cnete aerate Sept. 3, 
BR OWNAGE) OHNE © LTRROR D1 tee ty jciallelieiaia seen ee chee Jan. 16, 
BROWNE MRIRANCISN CHARDES) 22602 nee clyenla cca e- Jan. 9, 
IBROWNGONG WiGTCAN SELMNIRY:. 55 oleic cisisls ss 4 cleesic clas erste arr Sept. 6, 
Biogas, \WmihE IBYNe Anew Wi AGmo Gane aa bebe od buoe oo April 15, 
BURNETT SERONARD) HUMMER), ..'2 5 .!.04c0-4.5eeecs ee. March 16, 
Biri LOMAS WHEEERSON®s 4.4.6.6 ac neces soe: Oct. 23, 
ES EEREVAUINE VETS AC TIATUAN EG. car e2eilsasd.6 a) a «)n12 eustaaueeleis s/t =k March 23, 


xli 


1904 
1910 
1905 
1913 
1918 
1913 
1907 
1912 
1910 


1893 
1893 
1907 
1885 
1894 
1917 
1905 
1913 
1917 
1902 
1918 
1898 
1888 
1916 
1917 
1897 
1901 
1901 
1915 
1894 
1900 
1914 
1888 
1905 
1907 
1897 
1901 
1900 
1909 
1914 
1904 
1913 
1914 


xhi Deceased Members. 


CAIRNS, JOHN SIMPSON), .02 seule on oe ea ere June 10, 
CAULEY AUBREY? RENDON occ ole eantie eae rns ree Nov. 20, 
CAMPERIE, ROBERTARGYELS.. vociay eee anemone April —, 
CANFIELD, JOSEPH BUCKINGHAM..................0.005- Feb. 18, 
CARTBTON, C ym US. ce ser rae ects oe ee ee Nov. 15, 
(CAR THEY “/HINWGIN As). nat otters ie wena oe Wie eae ee eee Feb. 8, 

Carter, IsapeL MontietH Pappock (Mrs. Epaar N. Carter) 
Sept. 15, 

CHADBOURNE, ErHeL RicHarpson (Mrs. ARTHUR PATTERSON 
CHADBOURNE) IS. set. gigs stoi vie crtein oeenes oh ee a eae Oct. 4, 
CaARLES, MRED) GEMAR = ciiccr sates ee ee ee ee May 6, 
CLARK, “JOHN) INA THANTEL cp suctole. yo iene eer Jan. 13, 
Con; WILLIAM WELLINGTON: 2.1 sce1. eae eae eee April 26, 
(COLBURN, WELELAM WATILACH: su. cack sce atte ete Oct. 17, 
Cotiert, [CoLtETTeE] ALonzo McGuen................-- Aug. 22, 
Conant, Martua WILSON (Mrs. THomMAs OakKEs Conant). . Dec. 28, 
CONKBIN, | CHARLES TIDGAR. fs asic’) oo ssse 0s ast eee oe Sept. 8, 
CORNING» ERASTUS “JE. 2) csi or ae eos te ae aoe April 8, 
VAWRING - VWRTAMTED, 52238 excreted seer Poet oe ee April 21, 
VATU, OREN: ATILTIN : 4, Ae Gcasee tie sucee ot ane ecre oe Feb. 21, 
Davis, Susan Louise (Mrs. WALTER Rockwoop Davis)... .Feb. 13, 
DAVIS: WALTER, JROCKWOOD.. asnceoueycuane ae nae April 3, 
DEXTER'S [SEMON| NEWTON «ccna clans oes fek eo neces July 27, 
Dover Junran MONTGOMERY, <:ac.c.. +. ss se ends Nov. 23, 
(DUNLOP, SEBIC sBROGEN.% <. c.cast Shen woe noe May 19, 
Dycum, Lewis. Mnpsayin. oo. ck ae ee ee aye ae Jan. 20, 
EELIOGE. SAMURG: LOWED... 226. 4e veo. 2u oe eee Feb. 11, 
I ATRBANICS. (HIBANTKILEN 67-502) sosianc se lferg as len noon ea April 24, 
FaRWELL, Mrs. ELLEN SHELDON DRUMMOND............. Aug. 6, 
PERRY, JOHN, WARWHEL. W.. + =< 2.2, 5cles once dole emie eat: Feb. 11, 
BRR, WEAR YC DISSIOLE:....0 si ctor oA a ecieraeh en nee eee tie March 18, 
INISHER,. WiKELIAM JEUUBBIGLI: 2.42/00 ccibon scruples Oct. 6, 
HowLer,  JosHuas LOUNSBURY:.«..( elscisicuie sie lone Silene ie July 11, 
FwLLpr, CaAnims ANTHONY. .% s5. 4c) Geis nelscisiee sass March 16, 
PULLER) IMOTHY, Oise: (2... accaget ee iene sistas ates tenses Aug. 17, 
GESNER, ABRAHAM HERBERT... 21.004 6c.s080 0400 ora ae April 30, 
Goss; BiNeAMIN, JORAN KING sf.2) tape ence crear eet Aer pees ae July 6, 
GRONBERGER, SVEN MAGNUS. .<...Gec: eee oo ees oe en April 24, 
Higgs Ny PwASDINE &; 4\c\02 celts sacs lat oan ae ete ee Nov. 6, 
Aton, Jmesp MAURICM: «5:20 2s tries a cite eerea ea chee May 1, 
HAZARD, eOWLAND' GIBSON piel tee eels aad nade ote cee Jan. 23, 
EPrir,,, Wine AM EDONIRY ties ae earn reat cn arae er acne aie Oct. 14, 
Jeran Ming’ JANE LOUISASH ea akties tan © oot aes Feb. 11, 
Hircucock, Mrs. ELEANOR BECKWITH.................. March 3, 
Hoapny, PREDERICK HODGMS: Sy4.) ene oe nis nes Feb. 26, 


1895 
1901 
1897 
1904 
1907 
1900 


1907 


1908 
1911 
1903 
1885 
1899 
1902 
1907 
1916 
1893 
1902 
1900 
1913 
1907 
1901 
1909 
1917 
1915 
1889 
1895 
1912 
1910 
1915 
1909 
1899 
1906 
1916 
1895 
1893 
1916 
1913 
1898 
1918 
1913 
1916 
1917 
1895 


Deceased Members. 
JekowiNDos}, INR) 1ahaseloG peo eecoooonoauDososueoueaode May 10, 
HO ORES qr) OSTA ee ate ce Scr 5.8 cn ist aye erate aie ea aya Stey ot RI ois Jan. 16, 
HOWE eH TLORENCH AURELIA a «cy. a/llatse asec siels cic else July 9, 
15 ONTO (LOOM SLOVE C8 tas iat ne ee ree oe eat Me eee nn meta Sept. 13, 
ROM AGAN TD 1 JOHN (SNOWDEN «5, + clesore tele tore ire is em % Some wen oe ene Sept. 19, 
UBB ARD eS ATAU ANDERSON) s....je/clcsicieieersiecie vee cise es = July 31, 
IVGAGES. CMAREMS EDWARD: 2 o.5:0. 06 000s 5 ersiecls erode veel s May 31, 
TINGERSORL, JOSEPH, CARLETON. o..c.06.0s 00006 oda Joie es Oct. 1, 
JENKS eOHNMV\ HIPPIE UPOTPERG «eis: sce ocune cle denise ae Sept. 26, 
EW HEMGLN DSH vemdUOULNen ci lei ch, ce cies eects cane es Sept. 5, 
JFOUNAP EMER BMG OULS ae eens ses tices cess chon chats cid. aevteiciads se: March 22, 
RU STICH MENON Yous ete eens Anis tots ickss Sek aoe athe sia March 1, 
GEAR VV ETA PAIN ITHON 554 21s 0 vielen sie 6 ot Gaasas oe Feb. 15, 
GN APE SmI ELEN Ye Ae ais rcrueis A's ole tee fa te doc yeas eves 4 Spring, 
KGIGHT MVWinE BER ORINDTONG sc settee iioee eee oc. cdi. os < July 28, 
ENO Xo MUOHNG COWING a ncec.t cakes iormibysiin moh ® eee cbel sila os 6 June 10, 
ERO CEI IU GUS ia ee a ce an wks ae hse aude ere elarchiteye 55% Feb. 15, 
FSG TATE rae DoW WA Gietcaten oy steerage Svc rchoise aim shave BS ate en eio-s.e @ os Dec. 4, 
Koumuren, Toure Lupwic THEODOR.................... Aug. 5, 
DOA EN GENS ELM AVN PATTI O45 sor ais aye Ghevoieteretsscte chars vwtalaove res Soe Feb. 7, 
LEANED) AVAL SOLURINI SI, sic ney. ao dite sce a ae ee Sinise oe ania aon Octi 4, 
PATE MIE RO AR OLIN Eis ont 9 avd cas er pte sudo ater ois wie wigntun: 68a s April 19, 
GAVE N CH EvOBER DIET OW yc sya e sie oe & s/o slenelcisie sis oslo asin April 27, 
Ibisin,, Ibasisitino), ANTADD-ONN IDIOT, on od oe koe obes ou pee ee eo re. May 20, 
Iumyey, WiIntiAM CHARLESWORTH. .......0 500.00 ccs eece July 5, 
MIND KN EO LUARD RSs Meeps. 0h ails s/o: 04 5 wie er nec de ©: hed aes Feb. 3, 
LEVOMD ANDREW DAMES t). 065 35 o acids 5 0.oe es awl so ome ae June 14, 
ORD WTETTAM, TROGERS § 4042.4,5,5:5)«. dasosiaiers os dayehes 5.0 oso atest Feb. 2, 
INIESB BHD GUD WON acestyscct cron acs telors ieichers Sitio ee eiaiss 6 Garon Aug. 15, 
MABBOTT,, DOUGLAS CLIFFORD. .. s2..4cecs shone ccs ac ss Sept. 15, 
VRSEDTEANINS BAL BEXCAN IDEN fa/'s,204 Wieic''o1 314 cvecauey arate cei elel oho veis & siele ne Oct. 25; 
MARBLBAN CHARTS: CHURCH, cc os cscs sie cries oes oe ee Sept. 10, 
IM Lanexong, OFT RSIS stale ne ccamaed Heo eI ee ARI rare eres eet March 19, 
WIEARIS AVWILEARD UORRAINE:;. . 0b slaves so 004 eee sarees. Dec. 11, 
INMARSDHN ELEN RY WARDEN a) a caceasescocae acacia ce a Feb. 26, 
Mei wan ANTI CHURCH «5 o64 so vives Gills gis 6 kb cove soa Nov. 1, 
GESTED © Name NRGWanttaroig fey Raysusvench sos" 05 6.4) ous cists oka. eienenays April 22, 
IVARCUACTINS UAV ATUL Sy sees cee cs ogee) Refs: 6s; « 10:0 01 «shore a-ate nn 0: aon ote Nov. 30, 
IMCIVIAHON Gs WALTER) INREEMAN).;s2.5 <5 0966 +0 sie cee cee Aug. 28, 
DNAEADD SUCOR GE) WOMITE gba... 215.5 a/sses.c 4% fe o's 0 ela wioeu Suskeopaal als June 18, 
PUN OD SEMEN EOAVIS cc oasic c a6 cod ais dees 35 6.0 ose. s disfarteeress Nov. 138, 
WIGRRELL, (CUARMNCH EDENRY, 5 0 oo. ois oo si asides diese oie July 15, 
NICHOLS MELOWARD GARDNER». 4.2 ics 0.08 5 oc ee ooe aderes June 23, 
INSTI UU Ee HMPA pr lettin es. ie rsi'r 40 ald, Ssiche ele aver Me es March 12, 


INORTHROP WU OHNGISATAH Err. rooms sei cere cree erie ete iciohae June 26, 


xlili 


1906 
1904 
1913 
1912 
1885 
1918 
1917 
1897 
1894 
1915 
1894 
1918 
1908 
1918 
1903 
1904 
1907 
1902 
1888 
1916 
1918 
1916 
1897 
1908 
1914 
1888 
1906 
1916 
1890 
1918 
1907 
1900 
1899 
1895 
1914 
1909 
1917 
1899 
1918 
1901 
1890 
1902 
1896 
1903 
1891 


xliv Deceased Members. 


PARK. CA USTIN LORD, ¢adiieies es Gone Home eon tees tee Sept. 22, 
PAULMIER, JHREDERICK (CLARK) «11... Seen ees March 4, 
PomMPRoy, (GRACH (VIRGINIAG (0 00/ccr chen eae meen rae. May 14, 
POMEROY, TARRY SMIRKEAND 9. \.).sea. eee eee eee Jan. 274 
ROWELESs MirssS.) Walt, secs c us he ae ee ee ee enters nee Se eae 
PUTNAM, VEREDERIC] WARD. 45. 4c) eee eee Aug. 14, 
AGSDALE AAGRORGH HENRY... he sie an eee March 25, 
FRUAWIN, SH RAN CIS a WEE TAM 19.12 5s-e cle Seven ita eres June 12, 
Reapy, GEORGH HENRY .e.46. ce ies coe eee or March 20, 
Ren, Cancrmny ALBERT a1 tas eee ae eee Dec. 16, 
RICHARDSON:  HININICSS rcv. jit tree cies ae June 24, 
Rosins, Jut1a Stockton (Mrs. Epwarp Rosins)......... July 2, 
SAND. [SAB RETA WO Wale nae ai oe ae ae ee April 20, 
DSAVAGI (WiATAIER@ Guns ied stoeacs 5 0 eee ee Aug. —, 
SELOUS), (PERCY SHPRBORN = 52+. 15040 alee ee Se Aprile, 
SHANNON, VWViILLEAM, PURDYc) 20) en eae een ae tan Oct. 29, 
SLATER) SAME VEL Witt lsciuod Waa ett ee Reet tr ae Feb. 22, 
LEVIN; (MHOMASSEDWARDS!/4 | ),a\;ahce a seer eae Dec. 23, 
SMALE EDGAR VAT BIRT sities 200), ok oie an em al April 23, 
SMALE: ECAROLDEWEHSLINY:, «iis 1 catenin Mar. 12, 
SMUETH,. \CRARMNGE Apmis) oN a) 2) Uae ay eens May 6, 
SmitH, Ruru Coox (Mrs. H. A. HamMonp SmITH).......... Jan. 2, 
SNOW, ERANCIS, HUNTINGTON (3.214.260 60 ee ee eee Sept. 20, 
DOUTHWICK, JAMS MORTIMER. 2... .24 02. )0e ens ekee June 3, 
SPAULDING, FREDERICK BENJAMIN................-200- Oct. 22, 
STANTON; JONATHAN YOUNG, 245. 205. ciestsee ne ee Feb. 17, 
STONE, WILDARD JHARRISON),«..40/60 2.0.4 hee March 15, 
Styer, KaTuarine Resecca (Mrs. J. J. Stypr)........... Jan. 20, 
SweicerR, HeLen Bronson (Mrs. Jacop L. Sweicer)....March 24, 
(TAYLOR, ALEXANDER’ © DRISCOLL: 4) 2. so. core bene. April 10, 
THOMPSON, MantnTe” TAYTOR icon ee ee Aug. 7, 
THorRNE, Puatr MarRvIN............ Feit Res AeA or March 16, 
SEHORNE) (SAMUEL .: J poh tentccss a eee ee ee ee ee July 4, 
(THURBER, HUGHNE;CAREMTON a5gtso0 5 oe ee ee Sept. 6, 
EWEEDY, TUDGAR Gt .4 3.) 0 alee als SC ee melee, Se 4 emcee Nov. 17, 
Upnam, Mary Cornetia (Mrs. Wint1am Henry Upuam). . Nov. 29, 
VENNOR, /HonRy GEORGE. 2 cole ee ee Me Yote e aetsiols ae June 8, 
WATERS “HDWARD. OTANENY 1.305 0.7 @ 0 aoe ame oe alee Dec. 27, 
WALKER /ROBERTLATSH AW: )62) sgt e nuts oe hota oe Noy. 16, 
WEELES, CoARLMS/CAUTHR 5.44 eee nan pe ae wok Feb. 24, 
Winner JAMES! (CARI. 2 5 5)hs, eee eaten CRP Mle ce wee ae Janae 
WITEEY WALHO SS ace cnc ives aa cst oe eee nee eee tee Oct. 31; 
WEE ARD  SAMUET WELLS. «ee cme ancm tne an ee May 24, 
WILSON? SIDNEY STEWART ty.) 5c een eer ine te Nov. 22, 


1893 
1906 
1906 
1915 
1918 
1915 
1895 
1911 
1903 
1912 
1893 
1906 
1906 
1917 
1900 
1916 
1895 
1902 
1884 
1912 
1896 
1912 
1908 
1904 
1913 
1918 
1895 
1917 
1907 
1910 
1907 
1897 
1915 
1896 
1918 
1912 
1884 
1902 
1916 
1914 
1916 
1918 
1887 
1911 
1917 


Deceased Members. 


NWVATSIE RR MV VATE VAM ECOMOE A «1 c/n) 6 oyeie openers tails ci srtascilecehe euevste cies: Aug. 21, 
OOD UO HEN CTVATIRNEY 90.05 255.0%, od 5 a)-sta ote wid occ oho eae muse ey June 16, 
Woop, WILLIAM......: See ROT ATA Ss Aran Dinan Seoicao era Aug. 9, 
WiOODRUEE,, EDWARD! SEYMOUR. ....5.-..2..+s08-o0s+ 06 Jan. 15, 
WORTHEN, CHARLES, IOIMBALD : {0 .!soc.s4.cs04 se cee canes ae May 27, 
“IS SETA GHEE EA NOON 0 a ea oa eR gy GML Ose et Jan. 18, 
BY GTIN CHMRC UET RES OT AW HG e805 ccc aoe sistemas clone atone cies oe July 30, 


ZIPP NAW EAT DER GEGIAW IOS salsa cceitua ine cine deere oldie ayes tier Feb. 20, 


xlv 


1911 
1916 
1885 
1909 
1909 
1917 
1902 
1914 


he : : 


ae 


‘ 


Old CONTINUATION OF THE New 


Series Series, 
Vol. XLIV BULLETIN OF THE NUTTALL ORNITHOLOGICAL CLUB Vol. XXXVI 


- “The Auk 


H Quarterly Journal of Ornithology 


Vol. XXXVI —- JANUARY, 1919 


Nes = 
ated 
Pi Sea ee 


Sir te 


PUBLISHED BY 


The American Ornithologists’ Union 


> 


CAMBRIDGE, MASS. 


Entered as second-class mail matter in the Post Office at Boston, Mass. 
“ Acceptance for mailing at special rate of postage provided for in Section 
1103, Act of October 3, 1917, authorized on September 23, 1918.” 


CONTENTS 


PAGE 
Tre Brrps or tHE Rep Deer River, ALBERTA. By P. A. Taverner. (Plates 
EVs) 4 : : i : : , b ) : f : : 1 
THe Hawaiian Evepaio. By Vaughan MacCaughey - Nae p 4 22 
FurtHER Notts on NEw Brunswick Birps. By P. B. Philippand B.S. Bowdish 
(Plates V—VI.) : - 5 \ é a i ; : 36 
Winter Birps or East Goose Creek, Fuoripa. By R. W. Williams . : 45 
Nores ON THE SUMMER Birps OF THE UPPER YUKON Reaion, AtaskKa. By Eliot 
Blackwelder. 4 H 5 i 3 i 4 4 A 57 
Notes on Some Bigps OF THE OKANAGAN VALLEY, BRITISH CoLtumBIA. By J. A. 
Munro . yeh ano 3 $ A : : 4 2 2 f . 4 64 
Description oF A New Species oF PtraNGA HEPATICA SwAInson. By Harry C. 
Oberholser ‘ : é ‘ ; P z : 5 A 74 
Notes on Norte American Birps. VII. By Harry C. Oberholser . : i 81 
DESCRIPTION OF A NEw SEASIDE SPARROW FROM Fioripa. By Arthur H. Howell . 86 
Descriptions oF New Brirps rrom SoutH America. By Charles B. Cory . iM 88 
THIRTY-SIXTH STATED MEETING OF THE AMERICAN ORNITHOLOGISTS’ Union. By 
S. Palmer é 90 


GENERAL Notes.— Further Notes on the ‘‘ Fishy’’ Flavor of Birds, 100; Egrets (Herodias 
egretta) in Northern New Jersey, 101: Brooding Habit of the American Coot, .102; 
Stilt Sandpiper (Micropalama himantopus) in Wyoming, 102; Notes on Migratory 
Anatine and Limicole from Western New York, 102; Spring Shore-birds in Con- 
necticut, 104; Killdeer (Oxyechus vociferus) Nesting in West Haven, Conn., 105; 
Mourning Doves Sharing a Robin Roost, 106; Duck Hawks Wintering in the Center 
of Philadelphia, 108; A Note of the Long-eared Owl (Asio wilsonianus), 109; The 
Short-eared Owl in Massachusetts in Summer, 109; On Brotogeris ferrugineifrons 
Lawrence, 110; Arctic Three-toed Woodpecker (Picoides arcticus) at Belmont, Mass., 
110; The Song of the Blue Jay, 111; The A’sthetic Sense in Birds as Illustrated in 
the Crow, 112; Proper Name of the Tree Sparrow, 114; The Rose-breasted Grosbeak 
in Connecticut in November, 114; Zamelodia versus Hedymeles, 115; Rough-winged 
Swallow, Unusual Nesting Sites, 115; Late Nesting of the Red-eyed Vireo in Detroit 
Mich., 115; Local Decrease of Warblers in 1917, 116; The Name ‘‘erythrogaster,”’ 
and Others, 116; Waterton on Bird Song, 118; Correction, 118._ 


Recent Lirerature— Beebe’s ‘Monograph of the Pheasants,’ 119; Leo Miller’s ‘In 


the Wilds of South America,’ 125;Van Oort’s Birds of the Netherlands, 127; Mathews’ - 


‘The Birds of Australia,’ 129; Beebe’s ‘Jungle Peace,’ 130; Riley on a Collection of 
Birds from Northeastern Siberia, 131; Shufeldt on the Skeleton of the Kea Parrot, 
131; Murphy’s Photographs of South Georgia Birds, 132; Taverner’s Recent Papers 
on Canadian Birds, 132; ‘Aves’ in the Zoological Record, 133; Proceedings of the 
Linnean Society of New York, 133; Annual Report of the National Association of 
Audubon Societies, 134; Zimmer on Rare Birds from Luzon and Mindoro, 135; 
Recent Papers by Wetmore, 135; Five Contributions to Economic Ornithology by 
Collinge, 136; Chapman’s ‘Our Winter Birds,’ 137; The Ornithological Journals, 


138; Ornithological Articles in Other Journals, 144; Publications Received, 144. . 


CorRESPONDENCE— Maggot Infested Birds, 147; Evolution of Bird Song, 149; Australia’s 
Effort to Save her Bird Fauna, 151. 


Nores anp News.— Changes in the A. O. U. Check-List, 152; Obituary: Walter Free- 
man McMahon, 153; Douglas Clifford Mabbott, 153; Prof. David Ernest Lantz, 154; 
Check Lists, 155; Paintings of Extinct Birds, 157; Matthews Collection of Australian 
Birds, 157; Account of the A. O. U., 157; Retirement of W. Ogilvie-Grant, 157; 
The Ottawa Naturalist, 157; The Chicago Ornithological Society, 158; Paintings 
Illustrating Camouflage, 158; A Supplement to Townsend’s ‘Birds of Essex County’ 
Mass., 158; Alleged Occurrence of Passenger Pigeons, 158; Called to the Colors, 158. 


‘THE AUK,’ published quarterly as the Organ of the AMERICAN ORNITHOL- 
ogists’ Union, isedited, beginning with volume for 1912, by Dr. Witmer STONE. 

Terms :— $3.00 a year, including postage, strictly in advance. Single num- 
bers, 75 cents. Tree to Honorary Fellows, and to Fellows, Members, and Asso- 
eiates of the A. O. U. not in arrears for dues. 


Tur OFFIcE OF PUBLICATION IS AT 30 BoyLston St., CamBrinGg, Boston, 
‘Mass. 


Subscriptions may also be addressed to Dr. JonatHan Dwicut, Business 
‘Manager, 134, W. 71st St., New York, N. Y. Foreign Subscribers may 
obtain ‘THe Aux’ through WituErsBy & Co., 326, High HoLgorn, Lonpon, W. C. 


All articles and communications intended for publication and all books 
and publications for notice, may be sent to DR. WITMER STONE, 
ACADEMY OF NATURAL ScIENCES, LOGAN SQUARE, PHILADELPHIA, Pa. 


Manuscripts for general articles must await their turn for publication if others 
are already on file but they must bein the editor’s hands at least six weeks, before 
the date of issue of the number for which they are intended, and manuscripts 
for ‘ General Notes’, ‘ Recent Literature’, etc., not later than the first of the month 
preceding the date of the number in which it is desired they shall appear. 


| 
. 
| 
4 
| 


‘spo Bosom Roddy, 
MGGUD 'TMHANVG AWAY ‘TT dNva 


is 


‘vYiuddly ‘ 


SacLWlc] TAXXX 104A Ay Any 


THE AUK: 


A QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF 


ORNITHOLOGY. 


VG. xxvi. JANUARY, 1919. No. 1. 


THE BIRDS OF THE RED DEER RIVER, ALBERTA. 
BY P. A. TAVERNER.! 


Plates I-IV. 


THE region about Red Deer and Calgary, Alta., has received 
the attention of several ornithological observers; but while indi- 
vidual notes and specimens from there are scattered through many 
publications and various collections no attempt has been made to 
correlate or bring them all together. During the summers of 
1915 and 1916 the Geological Survey of Canada had parties col- 
lecting large fossils in the Edmonton and Belly River formations 
in the bad-lands of the Red Deer River. Incidental to this work 
Mr. George Sternberg of this museum collected a number of inter- 
esting birds. His account of the country and the ornithological 
specimens he secured, added to the fragmentary references in 
literature, proved so interesting that it was decided to make a more 
intensive ornithological investigation of the river during the sum- 
mer of 1917. 

June 18 found the writer and C. H. Young in Red Deer, where a 
rough scow-shaped boat was built, sixteen feet long and four and 
a half feet wide, capable of carrying ourselves and a comfortable 
amount of camp and collecting equipment. An outboard motor 
was attached and the descent of the river begun on June 25. While 
on the subject it may be well to state that this outfit was eminently 


1 Published by permission of the Geological Survey, Ottawa, Ont. 
1 


2 TAVERNER, Birds of Red Deer River, Alta. [pee 
satisfactory. The rather clumsy boat and low power motor while 
not adapted for navigating against the current were admirable 
for going with it, and had the trip to be made over again I know of 
no important detail that might be altered. 

The river was at about mid-height. The high spring floods were 
past but the water had not reached its low summer level. No 
rapids of importance were encountered and in only two places was 
navigation more than mildly exciting. The first was the “Canyon,” 
some twenty-five miles from Red Deer via the river, though only 
eight miles overland. The other was just above the Grand Trunk 
Pacific Railway crossing south of Alix between camps 3 and 4. 
We had heard from residents of the danger of these places and 
probably at certain stages of water they may be bad, but when we 
passed we found that the risk had been much exaggerated. 

From Red Deer to Drumheller the river was usually deep and 
water could always be found for much deeper draught than ours. 
Occasional shallows occurred and islands divided the current, 
necessitating some care in choosing the proper channel. It was 
necessary also to put such a motor as we had on a hinge to avoid 
disaster when through misjudgment the wrong channel was taken 
and shallow water was unexpectedly encountered. A little above 
Drumheller and continuing below, the river widens and shallows 
and the bottom changes from boulder and gravel to sandy mud, 
forming shifting shoals between which the channel meanders con- 
fusingly, rendering navigation more complicated though mistakes 
were annoying rather than serious. 

The whole valley of the river lies some 100 to 250 feet below the 
general prairie level. Above Nevis, Camp 4, it is comparatively 
narrow and bounded by simple hills, steep bluffs or rocky cliffs, 
usually as well covered with vegetation as the slope and age of 
exposure permits. The prairie begins close to the river at the 
verge of the first embankment and the ox-bow bends are well 
wooded. Below Nevis the aspect of the landscape changes con- 
siderably, bare, raw, freshly eroded exposures are the rule and bad- 
land conditions are assumed. The ox-bows are extensive gumbo 
flats with the woods confined to the river edge; otherwise bare 
blufis rise straight from the water, or raw clay hills, striped hori- 
zontally with black coal seams, succeed each other as far as the eye 


abl TAVERNER, Birds of Red Deer River, Alta. 3 


can reach, shaped by the elements into strange forms, gashed into 
gullies with sharp knife-edged buttresses between, or carved into 
domes and sugar loaf shapes. Between Camps 9 and 10 this 
sculpturing becomes more pronounced and stranger still. The 
domes are more conical, their sides steeper, vertical cliffs and sink- 
holes are more common and the sky line more ragged. Gothic 
cathedral outlines replace Byzantine domes and the landscape 
exhibits a confusion of buttressed spires and balanced rock-capped 
pinnacles. 

The country about Red Deer is rolling prairie of varied and 
interesting aspect with considerable spruce bush covering the hills 
and following watercourses. On the river, as far as Nevis, spruce 
of considerable size is a conspicuous element in the vegetation, 
ascending the hills on either hand wherever root hold can be ob- 
tained, while the stream margin is well clothed with poplar, birch 
and willow. Below Nevis the spruce gets less common and smaller, 
and within a few miles further down exists only as small scrub 
covering the higher and colder slopes. Below Drumheller it ceases 
to exist at all. As the spruce gives out the cottonwood along the 
banks takes on a larger and stronger growth. Wherever the swing 
of the river has built up an alluvial plain the margins are well 
wooded for a hundred yards or so back from the water. Most of 
this is cottonwood and large trees with great rough trunks and 
spreading branches like grove-grown oaks occur commonly. The 
smaller shrubbery is largely saskatoon or willow and alder. This 
character of vegetation persists, except on the eroded banks, to 
near Steveville, Camp 10, below which the timber becomes smaller 
and seantier, and at our final Camp 11, even tent poles were difficult 
to find and sage brush and prickly pear cactus generally came down 
to the river banks. 

The ecological conditions follow the physiographical aspects. 
About Red Deer and nearly to Nevis the river valley is meso- 
phytic, while below drier conditions prevail, until at our last station, 
Camp 11, below Steveville, the raw bare landscape, scanty buffalo 
grass, sage brush and prickly pear cactus proclaimed the typical 
desert, except here and there on the narrow flood banks and in 
traces along the lower courses of occasional intermittent creeks. 

The river valley as far as we followed it is practically unin- 


4 TAVERNER, Birds of Red Deer River, Alta. [poe 


habited. Here and there on the most promising of the wider bends 
little ranch establishments peep out of the wooded shores, but many 
of them in war time, alas, were closed and deserted, others seem to 
have been occupied only long enough to obtain legal homestead 
title, and only a few of them were occupied. Grazing is the princi- 
pal industry in such places and most of the bush margin is traversed 
by cattle paths. However, though scarcely a soul was visible 
throughout most of the trip, we had only to climb to the prairie 
level to find some of the most fruitful and best cultivated lands in 
the Canadian west: so, though apparently traveling in the wilder- 
ness, we were really never far out of touch with settled communities. 
This was especially true and striking on the upper reaches and down 
as far as the Tolman Ferry, Camp 6, where we made our last ex- 
cursion out of the valley. At the last camp, No. 11, when we finally 
left the river, the upper level conditions were rather different, and 
wide reaches of dry flat prairie dotted occasionally with bunches 
of cattle and horses and only suitable for cultivation by aid of the 
irrigation project of the Canadian Pacific Railroad met the eye 
from the river to the railroad at Millicent. 

We left Red Deer June 25, arriving at Camp 11 near Steveville, 
217 miles below, July 19. This was the site of the Survey’s palae- 
ontological collecting camp under Mr. Chas. Sternberg and here 
C. H. Young remained until September 26, but the writer left for 
British Columbia July 21. During this trip, occupying about a 
month, no regular schedule was followed and we remained stationary 
or moved to the next location as local conditions suggested. The 
weather after the first day or two at Camp 1 was ideal for our work 
and we were even spared, by the seasonal conditions, serious trouble 
from mosquitoes that report had led us to expect to be bad. All 
who travel on the river do not escape so easily. Once or twice 
we camped too close to cattle herds and for our lack of foresight 
were vexed with flies. These were a more serious menace to our 
specimens than to us and our slow drying specimens of young 
raptores were seriously threatened by the pests. Careful screening 
of our drying trays however prevented further loss than the dis- 
figurement of a few individual specimens. 

Our first camp (No. 1) was made some twenty-seven miles below 
Red Deer, though only some 8-9 miles by road and just after we 


—_— 


er tah TAVERNER, Birds of Red Deer River, Alta. 5 


passed the “Canyon.” Here we remained until July 4, working the 
uplands as well as the valley, and obtained a fairly representative 
collection of the birds of the locality and an idea of the general 
conditions. Most species were breeding and all were very shy and 
retiring. We were further handicapped by being disinclined to 
take adults having families dependent upon them. This increased 
the work and limited practical results. From here on we made 
but short stops at varying distances and except at Camp 4, near 
Nevis, and at Camp 6, Tolman’s Ferry, confined our attentions to 
the river valley itself. : 

At Camp 11, after the writer left, Young made a general survey 
of the locality, worked thoroughly all the surrounding territory 
within walking distance and made as complete a collection as possi- 
ble. As he remained until the fall migrations were well under way 
he added many species to our list. His material is of exceptional 
interest as can be seen in the following annotations. 

I have included in the list references to the collections made by 
Mr. Geo. Sternberg in 1915 and 1916 as well as some specimens 
collected by Mr. Chas. Horsbrough at Alix, in the vicinity of the 
upper river, besides occasional other notes from the same general 
locality. Those accredited to G. F. Dippie are cited, unless other- 
wise stated, from the ‘ Catalogue of Canadian Birds,’ J. and J. M. 
Macoun, 1909. A good many specimens from this neighborhood 
are extant in various collections and should any reader of ‘The 
Auk’ have additional material or information I should be pleased 
to have it published as addenda to this list. 

Since writing the above, a paper entitled ‘Further Notes on the 
Birds Observed at Alix, Buffalo Lake and Red Deer, Alta., in 1915 
and 1916’ by Chas. B. Horsbrough, has appeared in ‘The Ibis’ for 
July 1918, pp. 417-496, giving annotations on ninety-five species 
and calling attention to a previous paper by the same author, ‘Or- 
nithological Notes from Alix and Buffalo Lake Districts, Alta., in 
1914,’ Ibid., October, 1915, pp. 670-689, annotating eighty species. 
From these two lists much additional data has been extracted and a 
number of species added to our list. Mr. Horsbrough’s rather free 
use of subspecific designations is a little disconcerting. In a few 
cases he has given his authority for his decisions but the majority 
are evidently made on geographical assumptions and hence whilst 


6 TAVERNER, Birds of Red Deer River, Alta. eS 


most of his specific determinations can be confidently received I 
have not allowed his finer divisions to influence me. In this I am 
not wishing to criticise the writer personally, only the current 
system which he follows. As I may myself be called to task for 
sins of subspecific determination I wish to state that my decisions 
are based entirely upon the material in view and it is not the 
intention to cast reflections upon the conclusions of others or those 
based upon different material. I also wish to be judged by the 
letter of my statements and not upon inferences that may be read 
into them. Many of my conclusions are contrary to accepted 
authority, but in explanation I herewith quote from one whose 
authority can not be questioned and whose words though written 
in support of a somewhat opposite standpoint interpret my 
attitude much better than I can express it myself. The bracketed 
interpolations are mine,— “No doubt many of the forms which 
the author has [or has not] recognized as subspecies in the present 
work may [or may not] appear trivial [or important] to others, 
especially those who have not had the advantage of the material 
upon which they are based; but in all cases it has been the author’s 
desire to express exactly the facts as they appear to him in the 
light of the evidence examined, without any regard whatever to 
preconceived ideas, either his own or others’, and without consid- 
eration of the inconvenience which may result to those who are in- 
clined to resent innovations, forgetful of the fact that knowledge 
can not be complete until all is known.” ! 

The following is a schedule of the Camps which are referred to 
in the annotations. The fractional camp numbers in the text 
refer to occurrences en route between camps. Mileage is by the 
river as the boat traveled. 


Camp, i— 25 Miles below Red Deer, June 25—July 4. 

Camp 2.— 30 Miles below Red Deer, July 4-5. 

Camp 3.— 37.65 Miles below Red Deer, July 5-6. 

Camp 4.— 55.80 Miles below Red Deer, the Pump-house near 

Nevis, July 6-9. 

Camp 5.— 83.40 Miles below Red Deer, Ross’s Ranch, July 
9-11. 


1 Robert Ridgway, Birds of North and Middle America, Vol. I, 1901, pp x-xi. 


THE AUK, VOL. XXXVI. 


BiPAiE alle 


Rep Drrer River BeLtow Nevis, ALBERTA. 
Erosion on right, Alluvial Flats on left. 


bei | TAVERNER, Birds of Red Deer River, Alta. 7 


Camp 6.— 97.20 Miles below Red Deer, Tolman’s Ferry, July 
11-13. 

Camp 7.— 132.00 Miles below Red Deer, Drumheller, July 13- 
14. 

Camp 8.— 139.50 Miles below Red Deer, near Rosedale Mines, 
July 14-17. 

Camp 9.— 163.20 Miles below Red Deer, 31-20 below Drum- 
heller, July 17-18. 

Camp 10.— 213.60 Miles below Red Deer, 1 mile above Steve- 
ville, July 18-19. 

Camp 11.— 217.50 Miles below Red Deer, 3 miles below Steve- 
ville, July 19-September 26. 


1.* ASchmorphorus occidentalis. WrsterRN Grese.— Two birds 
collected by Horsbrough, Buffalo Lake, near Alix Alta, June 1914, where he 
reports them breeding commonly. One of these, a female, is the form 
with slender recurved bill, once called Clarke’s Grebe, 4. clarki. 

2.* Colymbus holbelli. Hotsa@ii’s Grese.— Three seen on 
Brock’s Lake at Camp 1: a female taken contained an egg ready to lay. 
Seen also on small pond near Bullocksville with young and on small waters 
in vicinity of Nevis. Though lakes apparently admirably adapted to them 
were examined on the upper levels at Tolman Ferry, no birds were noted 
upon them. Horsbrough reports them rare on Buffalo Lake but common on 
many smaller waters. 

3.* Colymbus auritus. HorNep Grespn.— A pair with nest con- 
taining a partially hatched brood was found on a small slough near Camp 1 
and all collected. Only two seen thereafter at Camp 11 after the writer 
left, one juvenile being taken in extremely emaciated condition. This 
can probably be explained by the extremely muddy condition of the water 
preventing the bird from seeing its prey. 

4.* Colymbus nigricollis. Earzp Grespe.— We saw no Hared 
Grebe ourselves but we have a specimen taken by Charles Horsbrough at 
Buffalo Lake, near Alix, June 11, 1914. He mentions the species in neither 
of his lists. 

5. Podilymbus podiceps. Prep-BIiLLED GrREBE.— Horsbrough re- 
ports a pair breeding on a small pond near Alix and commonly on Buffalo 
Lake in 1914. 

6. Gavia immer. Common Loon.— Reported as being occasionally 
seen on Brock’s Lake, Camp 1, on whose shores we found the decomposed 
remains of a single specimen. Horsbrough does not regard it as common. 

7.* Larus delawarensis. Rinc-BinLep Guuiu.— After July 8 at 


* The asterisk denotes that specimens were taken or are in the collection of the Museum 
of the Geological Survey of Canada. 


[yan 


8 Taverner, Birds of Red Deer River, Alta. 
Camp 4 we saw occasional large gulls of the Ring-bill type but it was not 
until the 12th on a small lake near Tolman’s Ferry that a specimen was 
secured and identified. It is an adult non-breeding male. The bill was 
yellow with dark spots on the mandibles not forming a complete ring. 
The inside of mouth was orange shading to bright red in throat and showing 
externally at the gape. Eye-ring vermilion. The legs and feet are clear 
chrome yellow instead of the greenish yellow that most of the written 
descriptions call for. It is not impossible that these prairie birds will be 
found to be distinguishable from the eastern race on the basis of leg color- 
ation. Colored drawings of the soft parts were from the fresh specimen. 

8.* Larus franklini. FRANKLIN’s Guiu.— Seen almost daily in 
singles to occasional fairly large flocks as far as Camp 83 July 17, after 
which they were observed less regularly. We found none breeding though 
we have downy young taken by Horsbrough at Mirror Lake, where he 
found large numbers of them in 1915. At Camp 11, July 27, Young col- 
lected a juvenile in an emaciated and starving condition, the only one 
seen there. From the remains found in the Duck Hawk nests we exam- 
ined it was evident that Franklin’s Gull is a favorable prey of that bird. 

9. Larus sp. Larce Guxii.— Horsbrough received a report of 
Herring Gulls, L. argentatus, that formerly bred on Buffalo Lake, but does 
not personally substantiate it further than by recording the presence of a 
pair there June 2, 1914. These records may refer to the California Gull, 
L. californicus, or even L. delawarensis. 

10. Sterna sp. Trern.— At the Pump House Camp 4 near Nevis, 
July 8, terns were seen but not taken and their identity, whether Common 
or Forster’s, 1s problematical. Horsbrough records the Common Tern as 
breeding near Alix but does not mention Forster’s. 

11.* Hydrochelidon nigra. Briack Trern.— A few seen about 
small lakes at Camp 1 and again at Tolman’s Ferry. We have downy 
young taken by Horsbrough at Alix, 1915. He found them breeding com- 
monly at Buffalo Lake. 

12. Phalacrocorax auritus. DouBLE-crEstEeD CorRMORANT.— Re- 
ported by Dippie at Buffalo Lake (1896?). Horsbrough mentions a bird, 
provisionally referred to this species, seen there May 20, 1915, and repeats 
reports of its breeding near Edmonton. 

13. Pelecanus erythrorhynchos. Wuitre PrLican.— Though we 
saw no Pelicans we heard of them from several sources and Charles 
Sternberg reported seeing one at his camp on the Little Sandhill Creek, 
June 24. 

14. Mergus sp. Mrrcanser.— One was seen between Tolman’s 
Ferry and Drumheller July 13. It was a female or juvenile and its species 
could not be determined. 

15.* Anas platyrhynchos. Matiarp.— Quite common breeder on 
sloughs and ponds of the upper prairie level but less often seen on the river 
itself. Local residents near Red Deer speak with disdain of the locally 


| TAVERNER, Birds of Red Deer River, Alta. 9 


raised ‘‘ green heads ”’ saying that the migrants that come in the fall are a 
much finer race of birds and easily recognizable by their superior size. 

16.* Chaulelasmus streperus. Gapwatu.— An adult and brood of 
newly hatched young seen and four of the latter collected between Camps 4 
and 5, July 9. Dippie found it common on Buffalo Lake in 1896 and 
Horsbrough reports nests in 1914. 

17.* Mareca americana. Ba.ppatr.— At least two pairs observed 
on Brock’s Lake near Camp 1, and a male collected, June 28. Horsbrough 
noted it near Alix and records nests at Buffalo Lake. 

18.* Nettion carolinense. GremN-winceD Trat.— Common and 
with young on some of the smallest sloughs on the prairie level but not 
often seen on the river itself. The only specimens obtained were flying 
juveniles at Camp 11, August 15 and 23 where Young reported them as not 
common. 

19.* Querquedula discors. BiurE-wincep TEAu.— Common on the 
lakes and sloughs on the prairie level but not seen often in the river valley. 
Specimens taken at Camps 1 and 11 August 24. 

20.* Spatula clypeata. SHovELLER.— Only seen at Camp 11 on 
the Little Sandhill Creek, August 17 and 18 when specimens were taken. 

21.* Dafila acuta. Pinraiu.— This species did not seem to be very 
common. A female was seen swimming in the river between Tolman 
Ferry and Drumheller and acted as if it had young nearby. Young saw 
one large flock near the Little Sandhill Creek and took specimens of juvenile 
birds August 3 and 4. We have another specimen taken by Horsbrough 
at Buffalo Lake, May 1915, who records nests at Buffalo Lake and vicinity. 

22.* Marila marila. Greater Scaup.— Though we did not specifi- 
cally identify Greater Scaups we have one taken by Horsbrough, October 
1915, at Alix, who reports nests at Buffalo Lake. 

23.* Marila affinis. Lesser Scaup.— Numbers of Scaups were seen 
on the ponds on the prairie level near Camp 1 and near Nevis. Most 
seen were males. The few females seen acted as if they had nests nearby 
but none were found. Our only specimen was taken at Camp 1 and is of 
this species. The Lesser Scaup is not mentioned by Horsbrough. 

24.* Marila valisineria. Canvas-sack.— Two downy young in our 
collections taken by Horsbrough June 1914 at Buffalo Lake, who records 
several nests. 

25.* Clangulaclangula. AmerIcAN GOLDEN-EYE.— The commonest 
duck on the upper river but not seen below Tolman’s Ferry. The absence 
of the Golden-eye on the lower river is probably due to the lack of large 
timber supplying nesting holes. Most of the birds seen were females and it 
seems probable that the sexes separate before reproductive duties are fin- 
ished. We surmise that the males might be found in numbers on the larger 
lakes in the vicinity. None were seen closely enough to detect Barrow’s 
Golden-eye, though they were looked for carefully, and Horsbrough does 
not mention it. Our only adult specimen is a female and an undoubted 
American Golden-eye. Several broods of young were met with on the 


10 TAvERNER, Birds of Red Deer River, Alta. fas 
river and on Brock’s Lake near Camp 1. Near the latter place we were 
shown a hollow tree where the species was said to have nested. At Camp 4 
near Nevis is a pump house supplying water to the railroad some several 
miles away. The engineer in charge told us that ducks frequently entered 
the attic of his dwelling quarters through an open stovepipe hole and made 
considerable scratching noise overhead. I climbed up into the space 
through a man-hole but saw no indication of a nest. Without doubt these 
must have been Golden-eyes that were attracted to the place but did not 
find it satisfactory. Our specimens include representatives of two downy 
broods and one adult taken on Brock’s Lake, Camp 1, June 28 and downy 
young above Nevis, July 6. 

26.* Charitonetta albeola. BurriueHEap.— Two females with small 
broods were seen on Brock’s Lake near Camp 1 and afterwards occasionally 
as far as Ross’s Ranch, July 9. Young saw two at Camp 11, Little Sand- 
hill Creek, September 14. Our specimens consist of downy young, Camp 1, 
June 28. Also adults and downy young from Buffalo Lake, taken by 
Horsbrough, June 21 and May and September 1914, who records several 
nests. 

27.* Oidemia deglandi. Wuitre-wincep Scorer.— White-winged 
Scoters were common on the river as far down as Camp 5. There were 
quite a number on Brock’s Lake near Camp 1 and singles and small flocks 
and pairs were encountered here and there flying up or down the river. 
Both sexes were present in about equal numbers and a female taken on 
Brock’s Lake July 2 contained an egg nearly ready for deposition. The 
residents, however, do not know of their nesting in the neighborhood and 
were as curious as to where they nested as we were. We have another 
specimen from Buffalo Lake, June 1915, taken by Horsbrough, who says 
they nest late in the season. 

28. Erismatura jamaicensis. Ruppy Ducx.— Dippie reports find- 
ing eggs at Buffalo Lake, June 14, 1896, and Horsbrough also records a 
nest there. 

29. Chen hyperboreus. Snow Goosr.— We heard of white geese 
being occasionally seen on the river but did not meet with any. Chas. 
Sternberg reports seeing one near the Little Sandhill Creek, June 2. This 
must have been a belated straggler. Horsbrough records both Greater 
and Lesser Snow Geese from Red Deer and Buffalo Lake respectively. He 
gives the length of the former as 27 inches but no further corroboration. 
He is probably mistaken in his diagnosis. 

30.* Chen rossi. Ross Goosr.— Two specimens in our collections 
taken by Horsbrough, Buffalo Lake, September 26 and October 10, 1914. 
He does not mention the species in his lists. 

31.* Anser albifrons. Wuite-rRoNTED Goosr.— We have a speci- 
men in the museum collection taken by Dippie on the Red Deer River, 
Sept. 12, 1896. Horsbrough reports a specimen in October 1915. 

32.* Branta canadensis. Canapa Gooss.— A Mr. Krieger, upon 
whose land we camped at Camp 1, told us that geese used to nest on the 


PLATE III. 


THE AUK, VOL. XXXVI. 


R, ALBERTA. 


ED DEE 


AR RE 


a} 


Camp 1, NE 
STS OF CLIFF SWALLOWS AND PRAIRIE FALCON NEAR LITTLE SANDHILL 


ie 


u 


N 


« 


2. 


REEK, ALBERTA. 


C 


Vol. weal 
1919 


Taverner, Birds of Red Deer River, Alta. 11 
clay banks in the immediate vicinity but have not done so for a number 
of years past. He further remarked that they are usually seen migrating 
high overhead and seldom come down into the river. Another Geological 
Survey party whom we met making a similar trip to ours under Dr. J. A. 
Allen of Edmonton, met two broods below Ross’s Ranch. Between Camps 
7 and 8 and 8 and 9 we met with nearly full grown families. When first 
seen they made for the shore along which they ran, trying to hide in the 
scanty bushes or in rock crevices. When routed out of these places or 
when they failed to find satisfactory concealment, they again took to the 
water and as none, not even the adults, could fly, they swam vigorously 
ahead of us, diving when we came too close. The female adult of one of 
these broods swam on ahead of us for several miles until the river widened 
enough to enable her to pass. The last seen of her she was paddling vigor- 
ously against the current endeavoring to rejoin her lost family, which were, 
by the way, sufficiently developed to be in little need of her care. Two 
specimens were taken, a nearly grown gosling and an adult female, July 
17 and 18. 

33. Olor columbianus (?). Swan.— Both Mr. Krieger and Mr. 
Brock at Camp 1 informed us that swans were occasionally seen passing 
over but know of none being taken. Horsbrough repeats reports of occa- 
sional flocks near Alix and Haunted Lakes in April. 

34.* Botaurus lentiginosus. American Birrern.— Mr. Brock 
near Camp 1, gave usa clear description of the Bittern in his neighborhood 
but it did not seem to be as common as would be expected amongst the 
numerous sloughs on the uplands and we did not note it until Young took a 
specimen August 22 at Camp 11 on the Little Sandhill Creek in the heart 
of the desert-like country. Horsbrough records nests at Buffalo Lake. 

35. Ardea herodias. Great Buur Heron.— Between Camps 3 and 
4 and 9 and 10 single individuals were seen and followed from bend to 
bend for several miles before they circled back over the low bends and 
were lost. Young reports individuals in the vicinity of Camp 11, Little 
Sandhill Creek, August 14 and September 3. MHorsbrough records only 
occasional birds and cites a couple of specimens. 

36. Grus mexicana or canadensis. Cranr.— Inquiries about Camp 
1 brought forth reports that a few years ago three cranes, ‘‘ exceedingly 
good eating,” were killed in the neighborhood, but our informants were not 
otherwise familiar with the species. Probably this refers either to the 
Sandhill or the Little Brown Crane which should migrate through this 
section. Horsbrough mentions seeing a crane of undetermined species 
May 4 at Alix. 

37.* Porzana carolina. Sora Ratw.— Several Soras were seen in 
sloughs in the vicinity of Camp 1. Doubtless if we had worked adjoining 
ponds they would have been found throughout the country. Young took 
one near Camp 11 in a slough on the upper prairies near the Little Sand- 
hill Creek. 

38. Fulica americana. American Coor.— Not seen by us, but 
Horsbrough records it as the commonest breeding bird on Buffalo Lake. 


12 TAVERNER, Birds of Red Deer River, Alta. [am 


39. Steganopus tricolor. Wutson’s PHaLtaropr.— Recorded near 
Innesfail by Wm. Geary, Oologist, XIV, 1897, p. 24, but not seen by us. 
A few were noted by Horsbrough at Alix, Buffalo Lake and Red Deer, and 
he found a nest at Alix. 

40. Recurvirostra americana. American Avocet.— Horsborough 
records a few breeding birds about Buffalo Lake. 

41. Gallinago delicata. Wutson’s Snipe.— Heard in their love 
flights, but not seen, as far down the river as Nevis. Young saw several 
and took specimens in the vicinity of Camp 11 on the Little Sandhill 
Creek, August 16. Horsbrough records nests at Buffalo Lake. 

42. Macrorhamphus griseus. DowircHer.— Horsbrough records 
one taken at Buffalo Lake, August 22, referring it, probably incorrectly, 
to the western race, M. g. scolopaceus. 

43. Pisobia minutilla. Lrasr Sanppiper.— July 8 at Camp 4 near 
Nevis six small waders were observed flying by but under circumstances 
that precluded specific identification. From the date they might as well 
have been late sprig Semipalmated as early fall Leasts. Horsbrough 
records the latter as migrants at Buffalo Lake. 

44. Totanusmelanoleucus. GREATER YELLOW-LEGS.— Horsbrough 
records the species and says it frequently occurs with the Lesser Yellow-legs 
throughout the season at Alix and Buffalo Lake. 

45. Totanus flavipes. Lesser YELLOw-LEGS.— Dippie thought 
they were breeding at Buffalo Lake in July 1896 and Horsbrough mentions 
them incidentally as occurring with the Greater in the same locality. 

46. Helodromas solitarius. Soxirary SanpprpeR.— A pair were 
seen on a small pool in an old ox-bow channel of the river near Nevis, 
Camp 4, July 6-9. Their strong reluctance to leave the immediate 
neighborhood and general actions were presumptive evidence of their 
breeding. I suspected the presence of young but could not verify it. 

46.* Catoptrophorus semipalmatus. WutietT.— Just below Steve- 
ville and on the last few miles of our trip we saw three Willets on a mud bar 
in the middle of the river and collected two of them. They were both 
juveniles and could not be subspecifically determined. Dippie found 
young of Buffalo Lake, July 4, 1895, and Horsbrough records a nest there 
May 20, 1915. 

47. Bartramia longicauda. Upitanp Piover.— Near Camp 1 a 
bird that we supposed to be of this species was seen and heard though not 
plainly enough to make certain identification. Mr. Brock, a local farmer, 
told us that two snipe-like birds bred in the vicinity besides the Spotted 
Sandpiper; a small one nesting in the swamps which we supposed to be 
Wilson’s Snipe and a larger one on the uplands, laying a remarkably large 
egg. The latter is a quite suggestive description of this species. Hors- 
brough records a pair at Buffalo Lake. 

49.* Actitis macularia. Sporrep SANDPIPER.— Common all along 
the river and breeding everywhere. One bird on being flushed from her 
eggs flew into adjoining bushes and climbed about them in most un- 
waderlike style while complaining at our intrusion. 


ree Val TAVERNER, Birds of Red Deer River, Alta. 13 


50. Numenius americanus. Lona-BIttep CurLEwW.— Both Chas. 
and Geo. Sternberg who have had several seasons’ experience on the Red 
Deer River have spoken of Curlews occurring in the late summer or early 
fall. July 22, when leaving, as I drove into Millicent I saw two or three 
Curlew flying in the distance. I refer them to this species on general 
probabilities. Horsbrough reports a sight record for the Hudsonian Curlew 
for Buffalo Lake, May 25, 1915, but does not mention the Long-bill. In 
western Alberta, the Hudsonian is most improbable. 

51. Charadrius dominicus. Go.ipEN PLover.— Horsbrough records 
two specimens sent him from Buffalo Lake, Oct. 11, 1916. 

52.* Oxyechus vociferus. Kri_~ipEER.— Not seen until August 23 at 
Camp 11, on the Little Sandhill Creek, where Young collected a single 
specimen from five seen. We have one downy young taken at Alix June 
1915 by Horsbrough, who reports them common. 

53. Perdix perdix. HunGariAN PartripGe.— Horsbrough was 
informed that this species was introduced near Alix in 1909, but failed to 
survive to date (1914). 

54.* Bonasa umbellus. Rurrep Grousr.— Said to have been very 
common about Camp 1, a few years ago but now scarce. Though we found 
much excellent ground we met none in this neighborhood and only occa- 
sional ones elsewhere. The same agents that practically exterminated the 
Sharp-tails doubtless decimated this species. See that species for further 
discussion. At Camp 3 we saw and took onespecimen; another was heard 
drumming at Camp 4 near Nevis. A brood of half grown young was met 
between Camps 5 and 6 and a single bird below Drumheller. Besides this 
specimen we have three birds from Ramsey and three from Morrin, taken 
by George Sternberg in 1915 and 1916. Of these but two birds are typical 
umbelloides, two cannot be distinguished from eastern togata, and the 
remainder are intermediate. 8B. u. umbelloides as it occurs on the Can- 
adian prairies is a most unstable race and there is little satisfaction in 
attempting subspecific identification of individuals in these districts. The 
area of overlapping of the two races is very wide indeed. Horsbrough 
refers the local form to togata but has probably not compared specimens. 

55. Tympanuchus americanus. Prairin Cuicken.— I have had 
the pleasure of examining a specimen of this species taken by Mr. Hors- 
brough in the vicinity of Red Deer Dec. 26, 1914, as he records. As it 
was unknown to local shooters it appears that this is the first specimen of 
the species for this locality and may be the forerunner of a permanent 
intrusion. 

56.* Pedicecetes phasianellus. Suarp-TatLeD Grouse.— This is 
the “prairie chicken,” so called, of the Prairie Provinces, and as such is 
well known. They were said to have been exceedingly numerous on the 
Red Deer a few years ago but are very scarce now. Though we covered 
much ground where they were said to have been plentiful we saw none until 
late in July when Young collected four July 27 to September 13, in the 
neighborhood of the Little Sandhill Creek. We spoke to several residents 


14 TAVERNER, birds of Red Deer River, Alta. ee 


who were familiar with them and their tales tallied closely. First there 
were great numbers of the birds and then they disappeared suddenly and 
without apparent cause. Coincidently numbers of “large gray hawks ”’ 
and ‘“‘ big owls ”’ appeared in the late fall and winter. Had the disappear- 
ance been principally due to overshooting, some birds would have been 
overlooked in the more out of the way localities; but, while the common 
report was that there had been little if any shooting on many parts of the 
river valley, the scarcity was general and we did not see a bird except as 
above. Correlated with the appearance of the raptores and the disappear- 
ance of the grouse of all kinds was the disappearance of the rabbits. It 
was the same story wherever we were in 1917: Shoal Lake, Manitoba; 
here on the Red Deer River; in British Columbia at Hazelton, and in Jasper 
Park, Alberta. In the last named place at least, overshooting cannot 
be blamed for the scarcity of grouse, as there is no shooting allowed there, 
and such small amount of poaching as might have taken place could not 
possibly have accounted for the almost total absence of birds. Also the 
widely scattered localities, practically all of central and western Canada, 
though perhaps less so in the mountains where heavy timber gives good 
cover, is suggestive of other causes than local shooting. I think it is 
evident that the occurrence of the well known rabbit disease that periodi- 
cally decimates these rodents deprived the large raptores of their usual 
food and forced them to invade southern sections in unusual numbers and 
turn their attention to grouse. The Ruffed Grouse, living in the heavier 
timber where cover is better, suffered less than the more open country 
species. Without doubt when their usual food supply, the rabbit, is cut 
off, the large raptores constitute a serious destructive influence. It is an 
interesting study in the correlation of species and complicates the subject 
of game protection. All that seems possible to do under the circumstances 
is to encourage the killing of the large winter raptores, yet if this is carried 
too far the rabbit pests are likely to increase in normal years to a dangerous 
extent and in the present state of misinformation the ordinary farmer and 
shooter are likely to involve in destruction the useful species of Buteo 
and Archibuteo, birds that the prairie provinces cannot well spare. I 
will discuss them and their effects under the subject of Red-tail Hawk. 
Horsbrough refers his specimens to campestris, which is the geographical 
probability. The condition of plumage makes me unwilling to pronounce 
upon the subspecies. 

57.* Zenaidura macroura. Mournina Dovre.— Not very common. 
We heard of a pair breeding near Camp 1. One was heard the morning 
of July 10 at Ross’s Ranch and another at Drumheller the 14th. One 
was noted the 18th above Steveville and one taken the next day between 
that village and Camp 11. Horsbrough records a single specimen from 
Buffalo Lake. 

58.* Cathartes aura. Turkry Buzzarp.— We saw the first Turkey 
Buzzards shortly after we entered the real Bad-lands above Camp 5, Ross’s 
Ranch. From then on several or more were noted daily. At Camp 11 


Vol. SSVI] Taverner, Birds of Red Deer River, Alta. 15 


on the Little Sandhill we saw aggregations of a dozen to twenty a number 
of times. Specimens taken at this camp August 20 and September 4. 
Horsbrough does not mention the species about Alix or Red Deer. 

59.* Circus hudsonicus. Marsa Hawx.— Occasional Marsh Hawks 
were seen from Camps 1 to 4 but were not common. About fifteen miles 
above Steveville a number of juveniles were seen, probably an original 
family not yet separated. After I left Camp 11 Mr. Young reports that 
Marsh Hawks became common. One day he saw a female carrying a 
Flicker for about a mile and a quarter when she dropped it to two young. 
On approaching and driving them away he found the Flicker still alive. 
Specimens taken August 6 and 10. 

60.* Accipiter velox. SHARP-SHINNED Hawxk.— Not very common 
as we descended the river, though Young says they were numerous after 
the middle of September at Camp 11, on the Little Sandhill Creek, where he 
observed them teasing Pigeon Hawks. We found a nest with five newly 
hatched young near Camp 1, June 25. It was in a spruce tree about twelve 
feet from the ground. These were taken, also several at Camp 11 on the 
Little Sandhill, August 27 to September 7. We also have an October 
specimen from Alix taken by Horsbrough, who also records nests at Red 
Deer. 

61*. Astur atricapillus. American GosHAawK.— Between Camps 5 
and 6, July 11, we saw a Goshawk cross the river ahead of us. Another 
was seen several times at Camp 8, near Rosedale Mines, and July 16 its 
nest containing three large downy young was found. It was about twenty 
feet up in a cottonwood in a slightly open spot in the bush. One was seen 
at Camp 11 on the Little Sandhill Creek, by Young, July 30. Besides the 
adult female and young above noted we have October and November 
specimens from Alix, taken by Horsbrough, and Mr. Edward Arnold in- 
forms me he has a set of eggs collected near Red Deer. 

62.* Buteo borealis. Rep-rarrep Hawk.— The most abundant 
Hawk on the river. It was seldom that one or more were not in sight and 
its nests dotted the larger trees every quarter of a mile or so to near Steve- 
ville. Near that village they grew fewer and finally disappeared and none 
were seen a few miles below at Camp 11 on the Little Sandhill Creek, in 
the midst of desert-like conditions. An accurate estimation of their 
numbers was very difficult owing to the presence of Swainson’s Hawks 
from which it was usually most difficult to distinguish them except in 
most characteristic plumages. They were not excessively wary and a 
fine series of both adults and nestlings in various stages was obtained; 
the young usually with at least one parent taken and sometimes both. 
Of the birds seen there was a great variety of plumage and colorations, all 
the way from solidly dark to very light, faded specimens. The dark 
extremes were rather the least common and, either apparently or actually, 
more wary, for in spite of serious endeavor we were unable to obtain them. 
Several were shot, but falling off on a long slant they were lost in dense bush 
and could not be found. There is therefore still some doubt as to the 


16 TAvERNER, Birds of Red Deer River, Alta. [ASS 


identity of many of these birds and many may have been Swainson’s 
instead of Red-tails. In all twenty-two specimens were taken. Of these, 

except for a very faint to pronounced barring of the tail, there is no constant 

character to separate them from eastern borealis. They average slightly 

darker on the under-parts but at least two birds are lighter here than typical 

eastern birds while several are indistinguishable in this respect. Many of 
the tails are very light, but new incoming plumage of richer coloration 

indicates that this is due to the bleaching power of the bright prairie sun 

and is an acquired and not an inherent character. Fading however does not 

account for all the lightness, as in some cases the feathers are mottled 

or suffused with white from the shaft outward. While this culminates 

in a female taken July 9, the half grown offspring of the same bird has a 

dark tail similar to eastern juveniles, while all other juveniles having - 
enough tail to judge from, show appreciable amounts of intermixed red 

such as is not seen in eastern birds. 

I was in hopes that we would find krideri occupying this desert-like 
country but was disappointed, as we procured nothing that could not be 
attributed to calurus. One interesting point observed was that like 
usually mated with like, a light bird generally had a similarly colored 
mate and vice versa. Only in one case did we definitely discover a very 
dark bird paired with a light one. We obtained the three young of this 
pair and while they are hardly sufficiently fledged to accurately determine 
the characters they would finally exhibit, they show considerable difference 
in color. One tends towards an almost uniformly dark bird while the 
other two have plain indications of cream colored breasts and throats. It is 
evident therefore that the darkness of plumage is a congenital condition 
and not assumed with age; also that there is often a large amount of red 
in the tails of many juvenile birds such as is never (?) shown in eastern 
specimens of comparable age. 

Naturally the abdomens of all the adults taken in the midst of the breed- 
ing season were bare; the skin was thickened and rugose, covered with 
dry, horny, scab-like plates that peeled off while skinning, and now that 
incubation was over, seemed ready to shed naturally before the incoming 
down of the midsummer moult. In addition to this, however, the throats 
were similarly affected. The throat feathers were ragged, worn and thin, 
whilst the skin between was excessively warty, the prominences tending to 
clear yellow in color and similar in appearance to the wattles of gallinaceous 
birds. It suggests that the throat is used in incubation as well as the 
abdomen. 

The value of these large Buteos to the farmers of the prairie provinces 
is incalculable. This applies equally to Swainson’s Hawk and the Ferrugi- 
nous Roughleg. The country is infested with gophers, mostly Richard- 
son’s Spermophile in the section we visited, but Franklin’s and the 13-lined 
were also present. Upon these the large hawks seem to feed almost entirely 
and their great number must be a powerful check upon them. However, 


THE AUK, VOL. XXXVI. PLATE IV. 


1. Nest oF FERRUGINOUS ROUGH-LEG, BELOW NEVIS. 
2. Rep Drer River NEAR Nevis, ALBERTA. 


Mel OX. N3 | TaveRNER, Birds of Red Deer River, Alta. 7 


this forms the subject of a separate publication, ! and calls for no further 
treavment here. 

63.* Buteo swainsoni. Swarnson’s Hawx.— Much that has been 
said of the previous species especially as to food, can be applied to this. 
Through the upper part of our course down as far as Camp 4, near Nevis, 
it seemed less numerous than the Red-tails; below that point it was about 
equal to them, disappearing with them at the entrance to the desert-like 
lower bad lands. Owing to the great variety of plumage of these two large 
Hawks it was in most cases practically impossible to distinguish between 
them except when in most characteristic plumage. Usually a dark breast 
band indicates Swainson’s Hawk but we saw many variations that made 
us doubt the absolute reliability of even this character. On the whole, 
I suspect that the dark phase was slightly more common in swainsoni than 
in borealis. 'The commonest type of coloration had such a breast band but 
they ran through a redder type with less conspicuous breast band to a 
nearly black bird on one hand and to light plumages similar to normal 
juvenile eastern Red-tails. We took twelve specimens in all including 
downy young. In nesting there was little difference that we observed, 
between these and Red-tails, though they were perhaps more prone to 
choose smaller isolated trees standing in the open, a location we did not 
see used by borealis at all. 

64. Archibuteo lagopus. AmeRICcCAN RoUGHLEGGED Hawx.— 
Horsbrough reports a few specimens on fall migration dates. Older 
literature includes nesting records for this and adjoining sections, but 
it is problematical whether they do not refer to the next species. 

65.* Archibuteoferrugineus. FrERRuGINoUS RouGH-LEG.— Though 
we recognized no Rough-legs as such on the upper river or before we passed 
Camp 4, near Nevis, the residents about Camp 1 spoke of ‘Chap Hawks”’ 
so called from the feathering of the legs. Just above Camp 4 in the top of 
a cottonwood we saw a very large old nest that aroused our curiosity and 
which we later attributed to this species. Below Nevis we had our first 
v ew of the species and from thence on it was very common, nesting on the 
tops of pinnacles and shelves of the bare eroded exposures and occasionally 
in trees. The nests were immense masses of coarse sticks and seemed to 
be added to and used year after year. Some nests seen about Camp 11 
on the Little Sandhill Creek seemed to have been occupied for many years. 
One built upon a salient buttress of a cliff had increased with annual 
additions until it formed a mass of material twelve or fifteen feet high. 
The lower masses of the nest were rotten and merged into the original clay 
foundation whilst it grew fresher towards the top until the final layer was 
of this year’s construction,— mostly sage-brush roots. In a little hollow 
adjacent to such a nest we found an accumulation of over a bushel of dried 


1The Hawks of the Canadian Prairie Provinces, in their Relation to Agriculture, by 
P. A. Taverner. Museum Bull. No. 28, Biol. Series No. 7, Geological Survey, Dept. of 
Mines, Ottawa, Aug. 1918. 


18 TAvVERNER, Birds of Red Deer River, Alta. ese 


Jan. 


bones, and scraps of gophers that had been devoured by successive genera- 
tions of young Rough-legs. The first nest we found contained three nearly 
fledged young and was on the top of a pinnacle on a deeply eroded exposure 
some 150 feet up and overlooking the river at a distance of about a quarter 
of a mile. In clambering about to get the properly lighted view for a 
photograph the young became alarmed and started out on their first flight, 
continuing until they dropped into the river below. One alighted near 
the margin and scrambled ashore but the other two drifted down and last 
seen were caught in the rapids below and drawn under and out of sight. 

The coloration of these birds was remarkably constant. Most were of 
the light type, pure white below and with ruddy barred legs. Dark indi- 
viduals were uncommon and we took only one specimen. ‘This is a com- 
pletely dark individual, a juvenile, and both parents were seen. One 
was of normal light coloration and the other all dark. Another juvenile 
similar to the one taken accompanied the family. We have five specimens 
of our own taking besides twelve more taken by Geo. Sternberg near 
Ramsey and Morrin in 1915 and 1916. Of these a brood of three taken 
June 26 is composed of one all black specimen and two that are evidently 
developing into the normally light-colored form. It is evident that, like 
the Western Red-tail, age has nothing to do with the darkness of coloration 
in this species. 

66. Aquila chrysaetos. GoiprEn Eacurn.— Horsbrough records fall 
and winter specimens from the vicinity of Red Deer. 

67. Haliaétus leucocephalus. Bautp Eacire.— Single Bald Eagles 
were seen between Camps 5 and 6 and 9 and 10. They were white-headed 
adults and easily identified. Horsbrough reports several specimens and 
gives a breeding record for the Buffalo Lake vicinity. 

68. Falco rusticolus. Gyrratcon.— Under the heading of Gray 
Gyrfalcon, F. r. rusticolus, Horsbrough records the capture of a specimen 
at Camrose, Oct. 1915, and mentions another taken about the same time. 

69.* Falco mexicanus. Pratrizs Fatcon.— Amidst the maze of 
gullies, pinnacles and strangely eroded hill shapes a short distance back 
from the river at Camp 11 on the Little Sandhill Creek we met a number 
of these birds. In all but color they are so like Duck Hawks that at a 
distance we confidently ascribed them to that species. At least two pairs 
had raised their broods near the camp and the nests were pointed out to us 
by Chas. Sternberg, who had marked them down before we arrived. 
Though in action and general habit similar to peregrinus the nests we saw 
were essentially different. In the first place they were rather solidly built 
structures of sticks or dead sage-brush roots; secondly they were in small 
natural caves of rather pronounced character, and finally they were at 
a considerable distance from the water, the immediate presence of which 
seems to be a necessity for the nesting site of the Duck Hawk. When we 
arrived on the scene the young had left the nest but a short time and were 
still in the vicinity and while full-fledged and apparently strong on the 
wing, they were under parental care. Between July 20 and August 31 


| TAVERNER, Birds of Red Deer River, Alta. 19 


eight specimens were secured including both adults and juveniles. The 
latter differ from the former in being more creamy yellow. After identify- 
ing these birds we realized that we had met them before on the river but 
had thought them to be light plumaged Duck Hawks. They were usually 
seen bathing in the shallows of the river shore. At least two were seen 
between Camp 8 and 9 and one just above Steveville; all in arid country. 

70*. Falco peregrinus. Duck Hawxk.— Though several of the 
birds we ascribed to this species during the last days of our trip were 
probably Prairie Falcons, a number previously observed were Duck Hawks. 
Friends about Camp 1 spoke of what they called Stone Hawks that nested 
on the adjacent cliffs, and one morning from our tent we saw a Duck Hawk 
feinting or making actual attacks on a Red-tail along the high cliffs across 
the river. The latter hastily took refuge in a tree-top and assumed the 
defensive while the Duck Hawk circled about chattering loudly and making 
frequent dashes at it, though as far as we could see no blows actually struck 
home. Shortly the falcon retired to an observation point on the cliff 
near by and waited, but at the first movement of the Buteo, returned to the 
attack and again drove it into a tree-top. It was half an hour or more 
before the Red-tail was allowed to slip away on its business. Just above 
Camp 2, and it was this that largely decided our stop, we discovered what 
was probably the same bird. It flew about us screaming loudly and was 
much disturbed at our presence. Parts of the cliff were liberally sprinkled 
with excrement and we were confident that a nest was nearby. The next 
day’s careful search, however, failed to reveal it and upon collection the 
bird itself proved to be a non-breeding female. As when first seen it had 
one primary feather shaft broken as if by a shot we concluded that its 
mate had been killed and it having been unable to find another in time 
for breeding, still lingered and took a proprietory interest in the site of its 
old eyrie. Between Camps 5 and 6 a nest was found containing three 
downy young and with both parents in evidence. We collected one of the 
nestlings. A few miles below this nest another was found containing 
four nearly grown young and one parent present. In endeavoring to 
get a photograph of nest and young the better grown nestling took fright 
and left the nest. It flew up the river for nearly a quarter of a mile and 
finally came down in the river but soon scrambled ashore where we added 
it to our collection. Both these nests were on ledges on cliffs overlooking 
the river. In fact every Duck Hawk nest I have so far seen has been 
overlooking water and usually with water washing the base of the cliff 
upon which it was situated. Little or no nesting material was used and 
the eggs were laid upon the bare shelf. About them were scattered re- 
mains of various birds, the most conspicuous among which were the wing 
feathers of Franklin’s Gull which from this evidence seem to be the favor- 
ite quarry of the Duck Hawks of this section in the nesting season. There 
were no indications of mammal remains and I conclude that this noble 
bird prefers feathered to furred game. 

71.* Falco columbarius. Pigeon Hawx.— This species was one of 


20 TAVERNER, Birds of Red Deer River, Alta. pan 


the agreeable surprises of the trip. Throughout our descent of the river 
a close watch was taken for the species as it was hoped that Richardson’s 
Merlin would be found. Birds were seen at a distance at Tolman’s Ferry 
and Drumheller that were ascribed to this species but either the distance 
was too great or else the glimpse too fleeting to make positive determinaticn, 
so up to the time of my leaving from Camp 11 we had no satisfactory 
record of the species. Shortly after I left Young began to find them quite 
numerous and to September 20, thirteen were taken. Of these but one 
was true F. c. columbarius, the remainder including 4 adult and 6 juvenile 
males and 2 juvenile females being typical richardsoni. We have also 
a male and female taken in June, in Cypress Hills, Saskatchewan; two 
more, probably an original pair from Edmonton taken by Spreadborough 
in May and a female with two downy young taken by Dippie near Calgary. 
It can be seen that in all we have a very good series of these birds, yet 
amongst them I can not see the slightest tendency towards colwmbarius 
and am strongly inclined to regard richardsonii as a true species bearing 
the same relation to columbarius as Falco mexicanus does to F. peregrinus. 
The oft repeated statements copied from earlier descriptions inferring that 
this is practically a single plumaged species are certainly incorrect. Males 
are distinct from females and adults from juveniles; and all are easily 
separated from columbarius in any plumage. . 

72.* Falco sparverius. American Sparrow Hawx.— This species 
was not very common on the upper reaches of the river but as we descended 
we found them more and more numerous until at Camp 5, Ross’s Ranch, 
there were at least four nests within three minutes’ walk of our tent, and 
below, every suitable stub along the banks contained a nest. We noted 
them several times essaying the role of Kingbird and badgering large hawks 
that intruded upon their privacy. 

73. Pandion haliaétus. Osprey.— At Camp 1, just below Red Deer, 
I saw a bird that, at the time, I was confident was this species but 
not meeting it again I had removed it from the list of verified species. 
However, Horsbrough reports information of a pair that, up to a few years 
ago, nested at Pine Lake some twenty-five miles southwest of Red Deer, 
the birds being last seen there April 26, 1915. 

74.* Asio wilsonianus. LoNnG-EARED Owxi.— Not noted by us but 
we have specimens taken by Geo. Sternberg at Morrin, October 1 and 8, 
1916, and at Alix, September and October, 1914, by Horsbrough who records 
a nest at Buffalo Lake. 

75.* Asio flammeus. SHoORT-EARED Own.— Young took one on the 
upper prairie level near Camp 11, on the Little Sandhill Creek, September 5. 
Besides this we have one from Alix, October 1914, taken by Horsbrough 
who also records a nest at Buffalo Lake. 

76. Scotiaptex nebulosa. Great Gray Own.— According to W. 
Raine, Dippie secured a set of eggs in the Red Deer District, probably 
about 1896. This likely remains the extreme southern breeding record for 
the species. 


ria TaveRNER, Birds of Red Deer River, Alta. 21 


77.* Cryptoglaux acadica. Saw-wHer Owu.— We have one speci- 
men in our collection from Alix, December 1914, taken by Horsbrough. 

78.* Bubo virginianus. Great Hornep Owxu.— Nearly every one 
who supplied us with information spoke of the large numbers of Big Horned 
Owls present the previous winter. I am convinced that these were forced 
out of their usual winter haunts by the failure of the rabbit supply and are 
largely responsible for the dearth of Grouse of all kinds this year in the 
western provinces. 

Just below Camp 8 near the Rosedale Mines we collected an adult male 
and a juvenile, probably its offspring. None were seen again until Young 
took an adult at Camp 11, on the Little Sandhill Creek, August 4. Besides 
these we have the following specimens from adjoining localities, three 
birds from Morrin and Sonema June 14 and September 24 and 25, 1915 and 
1916, also one bird from Red Deer, an old mounted specimen taken at 
unknown date some years ago. Of these the Sternberg specimens and the 
two breeding specimens taken below Camp 8 are well marked subarcticus. 
The Camp 11, Little Sandhill Creek, specimen I regard as pallescens as 
accepted by the A. O. U. or occidentalis as defined by Oberholser’s revi- 
sion of the species. The Red Deer specimen is different from either, 
being an extremely red bird similar in general to a specimen from the 
mouth of the Salmon River, B. C., identified as satwratus by H. C. Ober- 
holser but much redder than it or than any other specimen in our collection. 
Geographically the only thing it can be reasonably ascribed to is satwratus 
as is so understood by the A. O. U. list or lagophonus of Oberholser. This is 
undoubtedly a migrant from the mountains. B. v. subarcticus seems to be 
the breeding form while pallescens can be regarded either as a straggler 
from further south or an intergrade. The exact determination of these 
many Horned Owl forms is very difficult and hardly satisfactory when too 
great exactness is insisted upon. In the museum is a set of two eggs 
taken near Red Deer by Dippie, April 10, 1896. Horsbrough records 
B. v. pallescens as the breeding form in his first list and swbarcticus in his 
second. Probably all breeding birds should be included in the latter form. 

79.* Surnia ulula. American Hawk Owu.— Though not seen by 
us we have specimens taken by Horsbrough at Alix October 19, 1914, and 
by Geo. Sternberg, October 17, 1916, at Morrin whilst Chapman in his 
Handbook cites a breeding record, Red Deer April 16, 18 (?) Horsbrough 
gives no breeding records but regards the species as common. 


(To be concluded.) 


[san 


Mes MacCaucuey, The Hawaiian Elepaio. 


THE HAWAIIAN ELEPAIO. 
BY VAUGHAN MACCAUGHEY. 


THERE is no other region in the world with an avifauna more 
remarkable or interesting than that of the Hawaiian Archipelago. 
In extraordinary endemism, specialization, and precinctivity, 
the Hawaiian bird life is without parallel. Due to the operations 
of various malign influences, the native forests and birds have 
greatly diminished within historic times. Many known species 
of plants, trees, and birds have become wholly extinct, and many 
others are on the verge of extinction. A time is speedily approach- 
ing in which the extinct avian species will exceed in number those 
still surviving. 

The one indigenous forest bird that appears to successfully 
withstand the devastating influences of “civilization” is the 
Hawaiian Flycatcher or Elepaio.! This form is now the most 
abundant representative of the native woodland avifauna. In 
many regions it appears to be practically the sole survivor. A 
peculiar interest is therefore attached to this beautiful and familiar 
denizen of the mountain forests. 

Although the literature relating to Hawaiian bird life is volumi- 
nous, most of it is inaccessible to the average ornithological worker. 
Moreover, there is nowhere in the literature a comprehensive and 
modern account of this most abundant of the Hewaiian birds. 
During a residence of ten years in the islands, the author has had 
occasion to visit all representative parts of the native forests, and 
has spent many months in actual field work. He has been particu- 
larly interested in field studies and in the ecologic view-point, 
rather than in taxonomy. The present paper embodies the results 
of his own field studies, the examination of museum material, and 
a summary of the literature. In so far as is known to the author, 
this is the only monographie account of the Hawaiian Elepaio. 


1 Vowels pronounced as in Latin. 


Vol. atl 


1919 MacCauauey, The Hawaiian Elepaio. 23 


Family.— The Old World Flycatchers, Muscicapide, comprising 
about 60 genera and some 400 species, are represented in the 
Hawaiian avifauna by Chastempis only. The family is common in 
Ethiopian, Indian, and Australian regions; several are Palearctic, 
and 4 or 5 reach Europe. The family is fairly abundant in the 
islands of the South Pacific, but in the central North Pacific is 
confined to the Hawaiian group. 

Genus.— The genus Chasiempis, comprising all the Hawaiian 
species, was established by Cabanis in 1847 (Archiv fiir Natur- 
geschichte 1847: 207). The members are true Flycatchers, with 
broad soft beaks, the gape of which is beset with long, strong, 
spreading bristles. The tarsus is characteristically long and 
slender. The first primary is about one-half as long as the second; 
the second is about one-fourth inch shorter than the third; the 
fourth, fifth, and sixth are equal and longest. The tail is about as 
long as the wing; the rectrices are pointed. The sexes are similar 
in size and plumage, but the juvenile plumages differ in many 
striking particulars from those of the adult birds. 

Key to adult birds.— The specific status of the Elepaios for many 
decades was a subject of great perplexity to ornithologists, and 
led to extended discussions and controversies. The careful studies 
of such workers as Rothschild, Perkins, Wilson, and Bryan, have 
reduced the chaotic synonymy to order and conclusively demon- 
strated that there are three valid species,— one each for the islands. 
of Kauai, Oahu, and Hawaii. 

Much perplexity and confusion arose from the numerous inter-. 
grading plumage changes through which all the species pass before 
they reach maturity. The differences between the mature and 
juvenile birds have misled ornithologists to describe them under 
different names, so that as many as six or more species were recog- 
nized by some investigators, while others have referred all to a 
single species. 

The adults of all three species are characterized by wing-coverts 
spotted with white; black or white or both on the throat;  tail- 
coverts white; lower mandible dark. The adults of all species 
have the rump white; the young have the rump tawny. They 
not infrequently breed in quite immature plumages; there are 
numerous records of pairs, one white-rumped, the other rufous- 


[san 


24 MacCavauey, The Hawaiian Elepaio. 


rumped. The following key is rewritten and modified from the 
excellent keys of Rothschild and Bryan. 


A. Upper-parts bluish-gray or smoky; 
Kauai only. Kaval ELEpato, 
C. sclatert. 


AA. Upper-parts brownish. 


B. White tips of outer-tail-feathers 
usually longer than .50 inch; 
white tips and outer edgings of 
secondaries neither wide nor 
prolonged; Hawaii only. Hawaltl ELEpAto, 
C. sandwichensis. 


BB. White tips of outer-tail feathers 
usually shorter than .50 inch; 
white tips and outer edging of 
secondaries quite pronounced; 
Oahu only. Oanu ELEPAIO, 
C. gayt. 


Key to juvenile birds.— In all three species the wing-coverts of 
the young birds are spotted with tawny brownish-yellow (white 
in adults); throat brownish-yellow, without black or white; base 
of lower mandible light. 


A. Browner above, brownish-yellow of 
throat and tail-coverts deeper; 
head not so brownish-yellow; 

Hawaii only. Hawatt ELrpaio, 

C. sandwichensis. 


AA. Lighter, more brownish-yellow above, 
throat and  upper-tail-coverts 
rusty brownish-yellow. 


B. Occurs on Oahu only. Oanvu ELEPAIO, 
C. gayr. fig. 2. 


BB. Occurs on Kauai only. Kauat ELEpato, 
C. sclatert. fig. 3. 


pow MacCauauey, The Hawaiian Elepaio. 29 


Chasiempis sandwichensis (Gmel.) THe Hawai Evempato. 

Synonymy — Sandwich Flycatcher; Spotted-winged Flycatcher; Brown- 
faced Flycatcher; Muscicapa sandwichensis Gm.; Muscicapa sandwicensis 
Lath.; Muscicapa maculata Gmel.; Cnipolegus sp. Scl.; Eopsaltria (Chasi- 
empis) Sandwichensis Gray; opsaltria (Chasiempis) maculata Gray; 
Chasiempis sandvicensis Scl.; Chasiempis sandwichensis Finsch & Hartl.; 
Chasiempis ridgwayi Stejn.; Chasiempis ibidis Stejn. 

PrumaGcr — There seems to be a tendency toward a differentiation into 
sub-species. According to Henshaw birds on the windward side of the 
island have forehead, lores and superciliary stripe chestnut; birds on the 
leeward side have these parts white. This has been confirmed by other 
collectors. There is no noteworthy difference in the plumage of the sexes. 
The following very detailed descriptions, which may be taken as typical 

-for the group, have been revised and amended from the careful descrip- 
tions by Rothschild. 

Final adult plumage: Forehead, lores, and superciliary stripe white or 
chestnut, more or less spotted, the bases of the feathers black. 

Above, from the head to the back, dark olive-brown or bistre, tinged with 
rufous and spotted with white on the hind-neck and lower back. 

Rump and upper-tail-coverts pure white, base of feathers black. 

Wing-coverts (except primary-coverts) and inner secondaries black, 
broadly tipped with white. Primary coverts black. Quills blackish- 
brown, narrowly edged on the outer webs with olive-brown, distinctly 
edged with white on the inner webs, the first ones only at the basal parts. 

Rectrices black, outermost pair with half of the outer web to the tip 
white, and with the tip of the inner web for } to at least 3 white. 

The remaining tail feathers have a large portion of the inner web and a 
much smaller portion of the outer web white; these spots decreasing in size 
until the central pair is reached, where only quite narrow white tips are 
visible. 

Feathers of the under-parts black at their bases, white at the tips. The 
chin remains quite black, then the white tips appear, so that the throat 
is varied white and black. The white tips become so broad that the entire 
lower throat, breast, abdomen, and under-tail-coverts are pure white. 

Sides of the breast and body are more or less washed with tawny-olive. 
Under-wing-coverts spotted brown and white, the bases being deep brown, 
the tips broadly white. Feathers of the thighs black with white tips. 
Iris dark brown; upper mandible slaty-black, under mandible slaty-blue; 
legs and feet slaty-blue. 

Intermediate plumage: Birds having this plumage may be adult and breed, 
but it is not the final plumage described above. 

Above dark olive-brown with a rufous shade, thus appearing a trifle 
brighter than the final plumage. 

Lores, forehead, and a more or less distinct line above and behind the 
eyes tawny brownish-yellow, sometimes mixed with whitish or white. 

Rump and upper-tail-coverts white, the bases of the feathers black 


26 MacCavucuey, The Hawaiian Elepaio. Fae 
/ 


Quills dark brown, narrowly margined with pale tawny on the outer webs, 
with creamy buff on the inner webs, more so toward the bases. Seconda- 
ries tipped with white. 

Rectrices broadly tipped with white, as in the final plumage, but the 
white color does not extend so far. 

Chin and throat spotted black and white, in younger specimens appear- 
ing almost pure white. This variation is caused by the feathers being 
black at the base and more or less broadly tipped with white. 

Under-parts below the throat dark tawny brownish-yellow, with a 
broad, more or less irregularly defined, white patch on the upper breast, 
and extending to the under-tail-coverts, which are also white. Feathers 
of the thighs black, tipped with white. Under-wing-coverts deep brown 
and white. 

Tris, hill, legs and feet as in final plumage. 

Jwenile plumage: Above tawny brownish-yellow. Pale tawny on 
rump, browner on head and upper-tail-coverts. Quills dark brown, with 
pale borders on outer webs and bordered with buff on inner webs. 

Wing-coverts deep brown, broadly tipped with bright brownish-yellow 
buff. 

Tail-feathers deep brown, with pale borders to the outer webs. Outer- 
most pair with a small white spot on the outer web and a large white spot 
on the inner web; the next pairs with white on inner webs only. All these 
white spots are much less extended than in adult birds and decreasing 
in size to the middle, so that the central pair of feathers has no white. 

Under-parts tawny buff, passing into white on middle of abdomen. 
Some specimens are much whiter than others. Under-wing-coverts buff. 

Iris dark brown. Upper mandible deep brown; lower mandible brown 
at tip, creamy yellowish at base. Legs and feet slaty-blue, but less bright 
and paler than in adult birds. 


Measurements of adults. 


inches inches 
Length). 22 cis 9020. 00-0200 Bil -depthe (aii... a ae 20 
WED Pe cen chek dean enter 2.70-3.05 Bill ewacdithveewereae eee .18 
ST IVA diet erat po Gens eae a 2.40-2.70 TRArsuistpn. ste aeciae eee 0.85-0.90 
@ulmeneaeeuscse ae eee AT— .53 OCR eee te ae .63 


Chasiempis gayi Wilson. THe Oanu ELEpato. 
Synonymy — Gay’s Flycatcher, Oahu Flycatcher; see also under 1. 
Pitumaace — Adult male: Upper-parts brownish (feathers with bluish 
bases), washed with tawny brownish-yellow, especially about the head. 
Forehead rusty brownish-yellow. Lores and about the eyes white. 
Wing-coverts brownish-black, forming a well-defined bar. Lesser 
coverts tipped less regularly with white. Primaries brown with buff 
edges. Tail-coverts white. 


Ca | MacCaucuey, The Hawaiian Elepaio. 2. 

Chin white. Throat black with more or less white tips (not so conspicu- 
ous as in the Hawaii species). Breast with some reddish brown. Abdo- 
men white. 

Intermediate plumage: Similar to that of the young, but showing brown- 
ish-black in the throat, and more or less white in the wing and tip of tail. 

Juvenile plumage: Above tawny yellowish-brown, most yellowish on 
sides and back of neck. 

Forehead, lores, chin, throat and chest tawny brownisk-yellow. 

Wing-coverts and primaries brown with brownish-yellow edges. Larger 
wing-coverts sometimes showing white tips, forming a bar less conspicuous 
than in adults. 

Upper-tail-coverts tawny-brownish-yellow. Under-tail-coverts tawny. 
Abdomen white. 

The plumages of the female and young differ from the male in the same 
manner as those of the Kauai species. 

The Oahu species is distinguished from that of Hawai, with which it 
was long confused, by its more conspicuous white throat and almost entirely 
white breast. Seale has given an excellent account of the plumage changes 
of this species. 


Measurements of adults. 


inches inches 
Went. so. ce oles ees 5. 50-6. 00 @ulmeniccs. Aopese ess: 40-45 
VAT CMe een ace na0-2..05 MarSust ype oy a8 .95-1.00 
SNM Ses 2 estate eet 002.00 MOG ater mes oe te .60 


Oahu has been more completely despoiled of its native bird life 
than any other of the larger islands. More of the known Oahu 
passerine species are extinct than are living today. The Oahu 
Elepaio is the most abundant of the remaining native birds and is 
practically the only species commonly seen. 


Chasiempis sclateri Ridgway. THe Kavar Eieparo. 

Synonymy — Dole’s Flycatcher, Sclater’s Flycatcher, Chasiempis 
dolei Stejneger. A-pele-peke is the designation used by the natives of 
Kauai for the rufous-rumped form; the white-rumped form is called 
Elepaio. The first name is used exclusively on Kauai. 

PiumacEe — Adult male: Upper-parts uniform dark smoky-gray. Lores 
and superciliary stripe whitish or buffy-white. 

Wing-coverts blackish. Greater and lesser coverts tipped with white 
forming two fairly distinct bars across the wing. Quills blackish with 
grayish-fulvous edges tipped with white. 

Upper-tail-coverts pure white. 

Center of throat white surrounded by buffy and buffy-gray, forming a 
more or less distinct pectoral girdle. Sides of body grayish-white with a 
wash of rusty. 


[yan 


28 MacCaucuey, The Hawaiian Elepaio. 

Abdomen and under-tail-coverts white. 

White on outer web of tail-feathers narrow and extending along the edge 
for the greater part of its length; white tip about .35 inch long. 

The throat and forehead of the adult female are much whiter than those 
of the adult male. 

The young are very rufous above and chiefly orange-rufous below, with 
tawny-under-tail-coverts and rusty wing bars. 


Measurements of adult. 


inches inches 
enothemenncr crime tea 5.25-5.50 Bill depth eae cierto .16 
\iVheVe2s Ag oq S.omed 6c soo a7 oele) SsUlL Ayal, Seta sao “22 
Mail sOesstce eee ee OOo OU) ERSTSUS Rte Jett eee .80—.89 
Gulmene 57a ee cer .45- .50 MOG Rea hoa cashecre ete .65 


This species is abundant in all forested parts of the island; it 
was observed, mating and nesting, along the Na Pali coast. 


The appearance, ranges, habitats, habits, calls and song, breed- 
ing habits, nests, eggs, and life-cycles of the three species, in so far 
as known, are so very similar in every respect that in the remain- 
ing sections of this paper, save where otherwise noted, they will 
be considered as ecologically a single form. Field observations 
fully warrant this point of view. 

Rance: The native passerine birds of the Hawaiian Islands 
fall into three groups, according to range. 1. Those which 
occur on all the main islands of the group. 2. Those which occur 
on several islands, but also are absent from several islands. 3. 
Those which are confined to a single island only, and (in many 
cases) to very limited areas on that island. The genus Chasiempis 
belongs to the second group; the species fall in group three. 

The genus occurs on Kauai, Oahu, and Hawaii, and is absent 
from the islands of Niihau, Molokai, Maui, Lanai, and Kahoo- 
lawe. The absence from Niihau and Kahoolawe (the two smallest 
of the eight large islands), may be explained by deforestation; the 
primitive forest mantle has been wholly destroyed. Lanai and 
West Molokai have been largely denuded of forest. East Molokai 
and Maui, however, possess extensive forest belts closely resembling 
those of Kauai, Oahu, and Hawai. 

There is no evidence to show that the Elepaio has become 


Vo tial MacCavucuey, The Hawaiian Elepaio. 29 


extinct on Molokai and Maui. On the contrary, the evidence is 
fairly conclusive that this form never inhabited the Molokai-Maui- 
Lanai-Kahoolawe land-unit. The present islands composing this 
unit are separated by channels less than 600 feet in depth, and 
originally constituted a single continuous land-mass. Isolation 
has taken place through subsidence. 

Two theories are tenable concerning the inter-island distribution 
of Chasiempis. These theories also apply to many other Hawaiian 
organisms. According to one theory the primitive ancestor, from 
which Chasiempis evolved, landed upon the shores of one of the 
three islands which it now inhabits, as a chance immigrant or 
waif.!. After a long period of time fortuitous inter-island migration 
occurred, which resulted in the chance establishment of the bird 
on Kauai, Oahu, and Hawaii, but in some unknown way missed 
the Maui-Molokai group. Through isolation the forms on the 
three islands developed as endemic species. 

The second theory derives the three present species from an 
ancient stock which inhabited the primitive pan-Hawaii-land. 
This land, many times larger and higher than the present island- 
group, reached from northern Hawaii to and probably far beyond 
Niihau, and has been lost through profound subsidence. The 
present islands are the apices of subsided mountains.2 The 
primitive Elepaio ranged through pan-Hawaii-land and during 
subsidence was isolated on the three islands already mentioned. 
For some unknown cause it failed to continue on the Maui-Molokai 
unit. 

The altitudinal range of Chasiempis on Kauai (5250 ft.) and 
Oahu (4040 ft.) is approximately from 800 ft. to the highest sum- 
mits. Originally, when the forests covered much more of the 
lowlands than at present, and extended down to the strand in 
many districts, the Elepaio was abundant at the lower levels. On 
Hawaii (rising nearly to 14,000 ft.) the Elepaio ascends to the 
upper limits of the forest zone (7,000-9,000 ft.) and descends in 
certain places nearly to sea-level. It is most abundant between 


1 Just as a pair of Belted Kingfishers (Ceryle aleyon) landed and lived on the shores of 
Hawaii, several years ago. 

= William Alanson Bryan, Deep Submergence of the Waianaes. Vaughan MacCaughey, 
Outstanding biological features of the Hawaian Archipelago. 


30 MacCaucuey, The Hawaiian Elepaio. Fan 
1000 and 3000 on all the three islands. This wide altitudinal range, 
which embraces a number of climatic zones, is greater than that of 
any other native woodland bird, and strikingly indicates the versa- 
tility and generalized character of this bird. 

Aside from the primitive inter-island or pan-Hawaiian migra- 
tion the Elepaio does not give any evidence of migration. Within 
historic times the range has sensibly diminished. There are no 
observable migration movements within the present range of the 
species. 

Hasirat: The Elepaio is essentially a bird of the humid and 
mesophytic forests, and is abundant in all parts of its range. It 
avoids such habitats as arid treeless sections, wind-swept summit 
ridges, and the very hygrophytic summit bogs, although even in 
the latter situations it sometimes occurs. It is most plentiful 
in the protected wooded ravines and on the valley slopes, especially 
in the somewhat open formations, where the sunlight penetrates, 
the humidity is not super-excessive, and insects abound. 

Typical situations are the forests in the Waimea, Na Pali, and 
Hanalei districts of Kauai; the Waianae and Koolau Ranges of 
Oahu, especially in the Punaluu district; and the forests of Kona, 
Hamakua, and Kohala, Hawaii. The author has studied the 
species in all of these localities. 

It ranges from the ground to the summits of the tallest trees 
(nearly 100 ft.) Its average elevation is 6-20 ft. from the ground 
in the shrubbery and tree-crowns. It is not a ground-loving bird, 
although it frequently descends to the ground in search of insects. 
The Elepaio, on the other hand, is not distinctive of the treetops, 
although when the lehwa (Metrosideros polymorpha) is in bloom, 
the bird haunts the flowery crowns in quest of the insect visitors. 

During an eight-weeks’ pedestrian tour of the island of Hawai 
the author noted the prevalence of the Elepaio in the extensive * 
koa and lehua forests. In many regions the bird appears to be 
more abundant on the leeward than:on the windward side of the 
island. 

Next to the lehua the Elepaio’s favorite haunt is probably the 
mamake (Pipturus albidus), because of the large insect fauna 
characteristic of that shrub. Seventy-five or more species of insects 
and their parasites have been reported as inhabiting the mamake; 
nine species are not known to occur on any other plant. 


Vern MacCaucuey, The Hawaiian Elepaio. ol 


Food Habits—— The Elepaio is almost exclusively insectivorous. 
‘There is no evidence of vegetable food, save possibly nectar. In 
its feeding habits it combined the traits of the Flycatcher and the 
Wren, with strong resemblance to the latter. It catches insects 
in three ways,— on the wing, from vegetation, and from the ground. 
It often follows and catches insects on the wing, but does not sit 
for long intervals and watch for prey, as do the American Fly- 
catchers. In its aerial chase the Elepaio’s beak snaps audibly in 
closing. The author has often sat motionless in a secluded situa- 
tion in the rain-forest and observed the Elepaio’s aerial maneuvers. 
‘The flight is rapid, usually silent, with considerable fanning of 
wings and tail, and manifest ability in turning sharp corners. 

Most of the insect food is gleaned from the branches and foliage 
of trees and shrubs, and from the thick envelopment of mosses, 
lichens, liverworts, etc., which covers the woody vegetation in the 
rain-forest. Insect larvee comprise an important element of the 
diet. Beetles, mature and as larvee, myriapods, flies, moths, 
caterpillars of many species, together with spiders and slugs, are 
the dominant items on the food-list. : 

Not infrequently the Elepaio feeds from the ground,— among 
the dead koa leaves, in the fern banks, and upon prostrate and 
mouldering tree trunks. Myriapods, larvee, spiders and slugs are 
gathered in these situations. The author has commonly observed 
the Elepaio feeding on or very close to the ground on the steep 
slopes in the montane rain-forests of Oahu and Kauai, as well as 
on the gentle slopes of Hawaii. He has never seen vegetable 
food eaten by this bird. 

The Elepaio feeds all day long, from dawn to darkness, without 
cessation. There is no special feeding time; the bird is apparently 
insatiable and always on the qui vive for food. Seale found, in a 
large series of birds shot under widely varying conditions, that all 
had their stomachs literally gorged with insects and larvee. The 
Elepaio is keen-eyed and quick of movement; it catches and 
devours insects with great rapidity. It holds down large moths 
in its claws, and tears off the wings, etc., before swallowing the 
morsel. The author has observed the bird methodically pull off 
the legs and wings of various adult insects, in preparation for 
swallowing. 

The economic value of the Elepaio as a destroyer of noxious 


[ran 


of MacCauauey, The Hawaiian Elepaio. 


insects is very high. These pests have multiplied prodigiously 
in recent years, and it is to be deeply regretted that the native 
birds are not sufficiently abundant to hold them in check. All 
native passerine species are now rigidly protected by law, and are 
rarely molested, in any direct way, by man. 

Habits.— Perennial restlessness is an outstanding Elepaioan 
trait. The birds are always on the move. They chase and scold 
one another, sometimes more than two participating. When 
there are several birds in the same immediate vicinity, their program 
is a continual round of frolic, scolding, and feeding. Fearlessness 
and curiosity make the Elepaio conspicuous in the woodlands, 
whereas the other native birds slip away silent and unseen. The 
young birds are particularly tame and curious. Young and old 
alike will approach within a few feet of the quiet observer. Their 
inspection is sometimes silent, but more often is accompanied by 
chattering and scolding. They are pugnacious to birds other than 
their own kind, and will chase large birds away from a favorite 
feeding ground. The author has frequently observed the Elepaio 
chase and harass such species as Vestiaria coccinea and Chlorodre- 
panis stejnegert. 

The Elepaio has a number of distinctive little mannerisms with 
wings and tail. Sometimes it droops the wings and cocks the tail 
up over its back, remarkably like a Wren. Often, upon alighting, 
it spreads the tail fanwise. The male is not known to manifest 
any special peculiarities of habit or song during the mating season. 

Song and call-notes —'The name Elepaio is the Hawaiian rendi- 
tion of the simple song, which is scarcely more than a call “ E-lé- 
pai’-o.” This is also variously translated,— “O-né-ka’-ia,” 
“Pe-pd-kéo,”’ “Too-wée-6o,” ete. The notes are whistled very 
clearly and distinctly and carry a long distance. Occasionally the 
author has heard the bird singing sotto voce. 

According to the natives the Elepaio is invariably the first bird 
to sing in the early dawn. In many native legends this matin 
takes the place of the cock-crowing of European folk-tales, at 
which time the demigods, ghosts, and fairies must cease their 
nocturnal enterprises, even though they be incomplete. The bird 
sings at all hours of the day, and occasionally, when disturbed, 
at night. The Elepaio has no special song in the mating season, 
nor are there noteworthy variations in the song. 


Seg | MacCaucury, The Hawaiian Elepaio. 33 


Another call-note is a sharp “wheét, whto” or “tweé-ou”’ 
uttered repeatedly and with piercing shrillness. This “whit” call 
has a true Flycatcher quality. Frequently the Elepaio meets the 
human intruder with a scolding “chrr, chrr, chrr.” Several 
gurgling call-notes are also used, particularly when the bird is 
engaged in catching insects. It has no true flight-song, but on 
rare occasions sings while on the wing. The young birds sing 
during the first fail and winter. Altogether the Elepaio possesses 
at least seven or eight calls, and possibly this number reaches a 
dozen or more. 

Natives’ Ideas——'To the early Hawaiians the Elepaio was a 
sacred bird, a demigod (awmakua), and capable of omening. It 
occupied a prominent place in native mythology and was revered 
by the canoe-makers as a presiding genius of their labors. The 
canoes were hewn chiefly from the massive trunks of the koa, 
which grew abundantly in the Elepaio’s range. Many religious 
rites and ceremonies preceded and accompanied the selection, fell- 
ing, and shaping of the trunk. If the Elepaio, while inspecting 
a trunk previously selected by the natives for canoe-making, pecked 
at it in a certain way, or uttered certain notes, the trunk, even 
though partially felled, was abandoned by the natives as unfit 
for use. The author has conversed with many of the old-time 
Hawaiians concerning the Elepaio and has found that they always 
speak of the bird with great respect. The modern natives know 
little or nothing of this lore. 

Breeding habits.— There is little accurate information concern- 
ing the breeding habits of any of the native passerine birds, owing 
to the extreme difficulties of studying these birds in the field. 
More is known concerning the Elepaio, however, than of any other 
native bird. 

No special phenomena of courtship have been observed. It 
not uncommonly pairs and breeds before assuming the mature 
plumage. This fact has been determined through observations 
of nesting birds, and by the examination of a large series of speci- 
mens. The exact length of time during which the intermediate 
plumage is worn is not known, but there is undoubtedly consider- 
able variation at different elevations and situations on the several 
islands. The Elepaio, so far as is known, is monogamous; it 
probably takes a new mate for each nesting season. 


Auk 
Jan. 


34 MacCavuauey, The Hawaiian Elepaio. 


The breeding season begins in the late winter and early spring 
(February, March, April), during the latter part of the rainy season, 
and is conditioned by the severity of the rains. Eggs and young 
have been found in the nests in March, April, and May. The 
species are single-brooded. 

The nest is the most ornate and easily found of the known nests 
of Hawaiian birds. The nests and eggs of all three species are 
identical in every respect. The nest is usually built in a small tree, 
6-40 feet from the ground. Occasionally it is placed near the 
ground, but this is exceptional. Henshaw found a nest on a 
horizontal tree-fern trunk (Sadleria) within two feet of the ground. 
The Elepaio apparently does not nest in the very high treetops 
(60-90 ft.) The average elevation is about 20 ft. It is the only 
Hawaiian woodland bird that habitually nests at low elevation 
from the ground. 

In this connection it should be noted that the introduction of 
the Mongoose (Herpestes griseus) in 1883, for the purpose of eradi- 
cating rats from the sugar-cane fields, resulted in great damage to 
native bird life. The Mongoose quickly found its way up into 
the forest zones, and has seriously decimated the ranks of all low- 
nesting birds. The author has found the Mongoose, for example, 
in all parts of the Oahuan forests, up to an elevation of 2500 ft., 
and on Maui and Hawaii it ranges to much higher elevations. 

The Elepaio shows no preference for any particular species of 
tree or shrub, but uses any one that is suitable for its purpose. 
Nests have been found in Metrosideros polymorpha, Acacia koa, 
Dodonea viscosa, Santalum freycinetianum, Pipturus albidus, Maba 
sandwichensis, and other common trees of the humid forests. 
Interesting light is thrown upon the Elepaio’s adaptability by the 
fact that it occasionally nests in the dense thickets of foreign intro- 
duced shrubs, such as guava (Psidium guayava) and lantana 
(Lantana camara). These invaders now cover large areas in the 
lower portions of the Elepaio’s range. The other native birds 
are practically never found in these naturalized thickets, but the 
Elepaio has evidently taken the change as a matter of course. 

The nest is usually placed in an upright fork or saddled upon a 
horizontal branch and supported by lateral twigs. It is well 
concealed by foliage. The author has found on two occasions 


bees nhl MacCaveury, The Hawaiian Elepaio. 3D 


nests in horizontal forks at the extreme ends of horizontal branches. 
The nest is a neat, compact, and beautiful structure. It is usually 
made of grasses, fine roots, moss, or leaves, firmly woven into a 
deep cup. The strong skeletonized frames of the leaves of vari- 
ous forest trees are commonly used as nest material. There is 
much variation in size, some nests being 2-3 times as high and 
wide as others. Typical dimensions are, 1.5 inches deep, 2 
inches diameter, walls .75 inch in thickness. Nests 3.25 inches 
deep and 2.50 inches in diameter are not rare. The exterior is 
abundantly and artistically decorated with bits of fern-frond or 
lichen, held in place by silk from spiders’ webs. The lining is 
of fine moss and vegetable fibers. The fine fibers of the pilr 
grass are commonly used for the lining. Wilson found a nest which 
was made almost exclusively of the bleached calyces of the poha 
(Physalis peruviana), and that was of unusual delicacy and beauty. 

As a rule two eggs only are laid, although sometimes there are 
three. The intervals between deposition are not known, but proba- 
bly do not exceed a day or so, as the young emerge at about the 
same time and do not manifest marked differences in age. The egg 
is 1.25 inches long by 1.11 inches in diameter; the deviations 
from this average are very slight. The shape is ovate. The 
ground-color is pure grayish-white or very pale yellowish, with no 
indication of bluish or greenish tints. The egg is more or less 
heavily marked with small spots, speckles, and blotches of brown 
or reddish-brown; the under spots are pale lilac. The spots are 
usually most numerous around the larger end of the egg. Both 
sexes take part in the construction of the nest, incubation of the 
eggs, and in the feeding of the young. Practically nothing is. 
known concering the rearing and development of the young. 
There are no native predatory land-mammals or serpents in the 
Hawaiian islands; the only animal enemies of the Elepaio during 
the nesting season are the introduced rats, mongoose, and wild 
house-cats. The kona or southerly storms, which are of frequent 
occurrence during the nesting ‘season, undoubtedly often prove 
fatal to the life of the nest. 


(po 


36 Puitipp AND Bowpisu, New Brunswick Birds. ant 


FURTHER NOTES ON NEW BRUNSWICK BIRDS. 
BY P. B. PHILIPP AND B. S. BOWDISH. 
Plates V-VI. 


RENEWED field work by the authors during the summers of 1917 
and 1918, in the same region of northern New Brunswick as that 
dealt with in previous papers,' has resulted in the securing of cer- 
tain additional data concerning the bird life of that region, that 
would seem to justify publication. 

Since in our previous papers definite locality was not given, it 
may be here stated that all records, in previous papers as well as 
the present one, refer to Northumberland County. A large part 
of this region is wild and undeveloped. ‘Township boundaries are 
difficult to locate, and it is therefore impracticable to attempt 
more detailed locality references. 

In 1917 the authors were in the field from May 16 to July 2. 
Mr. T. F. Wilcox was a member of the party from June 15 to 30, 
and Messrs. George H. Stuart, 3d, and Samuel Scoville, Jr., from 
June 18 to 25. Earlier arrival in the field was undertaken for the 
purpose of studying breeding habits of the early nesting species, 
but the season here, as elsewhere, was extremely backward, and 
nesting dates by no means normal. Snow banks lay everywhere 
in the woods, often to a depth of five and six feet, at the time of 
our arrival, and lingering snow was seen in the woods as late as 
June 5. 

Field work for 1918 occupied the period between June 11 and 
July 1. The season was apparently a little earlier than normal. 
Mr. George H. Stuart, 3rd, was again a member of the party from 
June 15 to 24, and Dr. Henry F. Merriam from June 16 to 29. 


Additional Birds Noted. x 


The last two seasons’ work has added twenty-three species to our previ- 
ous list of birds observed, as follows: 

Rissa tridactyla tridactyla. Kirrrwaxn.— A flock of about twenty 
of these birds was observed on a point of beach, June 2, 1917. 


1 The Tennessee Warbler in New Brunswick, Auk, January, 1916, pp. 1-8; Some Summer 
Birds of Northern New Brunswick, Auk, July, 1917, pp. 265-275. 


SPIE NUK ViOls SOON I 


NeEstT oF THE Capek May WARBLER. 
2. Wuson’s SNIPE ON ITs NEST. 


mada Puitipp AND Bowptsu, New Brunswick Birds. 37 

Sula bassana. GannetT.— Considerable numbers noted off the beaches, 
June 2, 1917. 

Clangula clangula americana. GoLprN-byE.—On our arrival, 
June 11, 1918, a nest containing ten eggs, mostly pipped and about hatch- 
ing, was shown to us by a young man living near by. The eggs reposed 
in a beautiful and profuse bed of down, at the bottom of a hollow about 
two feet deep and eight inches in diameter, in the broken top of a yellow 
birch, dead, save for a thin, live outer shell, standing on a fence line be- 
tween woods and an open field. 

Oidemia deglandi. Wuitre-wINcep Scorer.— Two noted May 17, 
1917. 

Branta canadensis canadensis. Canapa Goosr.—Three noted, 
May 16, 1917, and a few thereafter, two being seen as late as May 28. 

Nycticorax nycticorax nevius. BLAck-cROWNED Nicut Hrron.— 
Two birds noted June 22, 1918, and on several subsequent dates. Doubt- 
less breeds sparingly. 

Philohela minor. Woopcockx.— The omission of the Woodcock from 
our previous list of birds noted was an oversight, as one of these birds was 
observed June 6, 1916. One was also noted June 14, 1917. Both records 
were made at the same place, a muddy island, covered with willow and 
alder bushes, and this was the only locality where Woodcocks were seen. 

Pisobia minutilla. Least SANDPIPER. 

Ereunetes pusillus. SrmipaLMATED SANDPIPER.— One or both of 
these sandpipers, in a flock numbering some thirty individuals, were 
observed, May 20, 1917, and on other occasions, up to May 27. 

Totanus flavipes. YrLLoOw-LEGs.— Two noted, May 17, 1917. 

Canachites canadensis canace. CaNnapa Spruce PARTRIDGE.— A 
brood of half grown young noted, June 21, 1917. Reported as formerly 
abundant, this bird appears to be now rather scarce in this region. 

Zenaidura macroura carolinensis. Mourninac Dove.— One se- 
cured, in scant scrub brush, on beach, May 17, 1917. 

Circus hudsonicus. Marsa Hawx.— One noted, May 18, 1917, and 
on one or two subsequent occasions. 

Falco columbarius columbarius. Pigeon Hawx.— One observed, 
May 16, 1917. 

Falco sparverius sparverius. Sparrow Hawx.— Several noted 
during 1917 visit. One observed entering old Flicker excavation, May 18, 
1917, was doubtless nesting there. 

Archilochus colubris. Rusy-rHroaTtep Hummrincpirp.— A_ nest 
containing two fresh eggs was found on June 23, 1917, built on a drooping 
dead limb of a spruce about twenty feet from the ground, in open woods, 
and another, in similar situation, on June 25. We met with Humming- 
birds quite commonly, both in 1917 and 1918. 

Empidonax trailli alnorum. A.per FriycatcHer.— Common on 
some of the mud flats and islands where suitable alder growth occurs. 
Doubtless breeds. 


[san. 


38 Puitiep AND BownpisH, New Brunswick Birds. 
Empidonax minimus. Least FiycatcHer.— Found breeding quite 
commonly on mud flats and islands, among willow and alder growth. 
Two nests, each containing four fresh eggs, were found, on June 15, 1918. 
Loxia curvirostra minor. Crosspitu.— A flock of twenty or thirty 
birds noted, on June 25, 1917, and a similar flock on June 18, 1918. 

Plectrophenax nivalis nivalis. Snow Buntina.— Several noted, 
May 16, 1917. 

Spizella monticola monticola. Trex Sparrow.— Two were seen on 
May 16, 1917, and a few on May 28. 

Vireosylva olivacea. Rrp-ryep VirE0.— Quite common in suitable 
localities in 1917 and 1918, where, for some reason, it had not been previ- 
ously noted. 

Dendroica tigrina. Carpe May Warsier.— Two males and a female 
were noted on June 3, 1917, and birds of this species were observed not 
uncommonly thereafter throughout that season. In 1918 they were found 
quite common and well distributed in all suitable localities. Four nests 
were located, position and general conditions being remarkably uniform, 
and agreeing also, in the main, with the nest found at Lake Edward, 
Quebec, by Dr. Merriam, in 1916.1. They were in rather high spruce trees, 
within two or three feet of the extreme top, usually as near the top as 
suitable site and cover could be secured. All were built in very thick 
foliage, against the main stem of the tree, resting lightly on twigs and 
foliage, but fairly secured thereto by webs, and were entirely invisible 
from the ground, in every case. 

On June 22 the first nest held six eggs, two of which were without incu- 
bation, the other four being fairly well incubated. The female sat closely 
until the climber was within two or three feet of the nest, when she dropped 
almost perpendicularly to the ground. No pounding, jarring or shaking 
of the tree served to cause her to leave the nest, even for a moment. This 
nest measured 43 by 32 inches outside diameter, and 2} inches inside 
diameter; 2} inches outside depth, and 1} inches inside depth. Exteriorly 
it was composed of green moss from dry woods ground, interwoven with 
fine spruce twigs, dry grasses, a few bits of club moss and vegetable down; 
interiorly of fine dead grass, with a thick lining of hair, feathers and a little 
fur, the neat and smooth felting of the lining forming a conspicuous feature 
of differentiation from nests of Blackpoll and Myrtle Warblers. This 
nest was about thirty-five feet up, in a thick foliaged spruce tree, standing ° 
in a semicircular opening in the woods, beside a public road, from which, 
save for the thick foliage in which it was situated, the nest would have been 
plainly visible. The six eggs measured: .65 X .49, 66 X .48, .66 X .50, 
65 X .47, .66 X .47, .56 X .42. They were white in ground color, well 
marked with blotches, spots and specks of reddish-brown, and a few fine 
dots of very dark purple or black. 

On June 26, the second nest, about thirty-five feet up in a thick, medium- 


1 Nesting of Cape May Warbler at Lake Edward, Quebec, Auk, October, 1917, pp. 410-413. 


ANT) Puitiee AND BowptsH, New Brunswick Birds. 39 


sized spruce, standing on the border of woods and clearing, contained six 
fresh eggs. Both nest and eggs were very much like those described by 
Dr. Merriam. 

On June 29, the third nest held five eggs, which seemed to be the complete 
laying. This nest was about forty feet up, in a thick spruce, in a fairly 
open spot in the woods, near a trail. Nest and eggs were much like the 
second. 

The fourth nest held six fresh eggs on June 29. It was about forty feet 
up, in a thick spruce, in fairly open woods. The material was the same 
as in the first, with the addition of several dead pine needles in the exterior. 
It measured 33 by 31 inches, outside diameter, 2 inches inside diameter, 
2 inches outside depth, by 13 inches inside depth. The eggs measured 
iii 25,0 X 52, 68. X -53,_.66' X -53, .67 X .53, .67 % .52. Inicolor 
they were much like the second and third sets, and the one described by 
Dr. Merriam. 

It appears to be characteristic of many of these birds that the nest tree 
selected is fairly openly situated, at least as to one side, although this is 
not always the case, since other pairs watched were very evidently nesting 
in trees where it was much more difficult to detect them. The extent to 
which our experience in the ease of the four nests located in 1918 agreed 
with that of Dr. Merriam in 1916, tends to suggest that nesting conditions 
as he found and described them are more typical of the Cape May Warbler 
than those previously described, at least in the localities where we studied 
them. 

Dendroica zstiva ewstiva. YrLruow Warsier.— One seen, June 
13, 1917. 


Supplementary Notes. 


Notes on species treated in our previous paper are amplified by the 
results of the past two seasons’ work as follows: 

Gallinago delicata. Wuson’s Snipe.— A nest with four eggs, well 
advanced in incubation, was found on June 16, 1917, and with some diffi- 
culty the bird was photographed from a crude and very imperfect blind 
of cedar branches, despite almost continuous showers. Another nest 
with four eggs, incubation one half or more, was found in the same bog, 
June 12, 1918. Only the single pair of birds was positively ascertained 
to inhabit this bog, and none were observed elsewhere in the region. 

Agialitis meloda. Prernc PLover.— In 1917 nesting had commenced 
by May 28, when one nest with one egg and another with two eggs were 
found. A total of twelve nests with full complements of four eggs each 
were observed during the season. Nesting was already well under way 
when we reached the locality on June 11, 1918, four nests with four eggs 
each being observed that day, and twelve more with complete layings, 
four eggs each, some well incubated, on June 13. A total of eighteen nests 
with complete sets of eggs was noted during the season. 


40 Puitipe AND BowpisH, New Brunswick Birds. ees 

Asio flammeus. SuHort-rARED Own.— A nest containing six well 
incubated eggs was found, June 11, 1918, on the same beach where the two 
nests with young were located on June 19, 1915, and within a few feet of 
the site of one of the earlier nests. 

Dryobates villosus leucomelas. NorrHern Harry WoopreckEeR.— 
A nest with young was found in a dead maple stub in a burnt barren, on 
May 29, 1917. On May 30 of the same year another nest about fifteen 
feet up in a dead maple stub in a similar situation, contained four eggs, 
very slightly incubated. On June 9, 1917, a third nest in a cedar telephone 
pole beside a public road was examined. It was at a height of about nine 
feet; cavity 143 inches deep; entrance 24 inches in height by 2} inches in 
width. This nest contained four nearly fresh eggs. 

Picoides arcticus. Arctic THREE-ToED WooppECcKER.— One ot the 
objects of the early visit to New Brunswick in 1917 was further investiga- 
tion of the nesting of this species. These woodpeckers, however, appeared 
to be markedly affected by the general lateness of the season, and at the 
time of our arrival it is evident that some of them had not commenced 
digging nest excavations. On May 22 a nest hole was located in a dead 
maple stub, near the edge of a large burnt barren, and a short distance 
from the edge of mixed woods. The male was in the cavity at the time 
of this visit, and the female came to the stub during the time of our stay. 
On the following day we again visited the nest stub, and with a large 
auger bit “ tapped ” the nest hole, finding that no eggs had yet been laid. 
The male was again in the hole and remained in it until tapping operations 
were well under way. The tap hole was carefully plugged, and plug and 
surrounding surface rubbed with soft, rotten wood. This nest was again 
visited on May 30, on which occasion the male was found sitting on four 
eggs, incubation having just commenced. The eggs having been removed, 
the plug was replaced, and while we were still close to the stub the male 
re-entered and had not emerged when we lost sight of the stub, as we left 
the locality. During this visit the female was not seen. It may be sur- 
mised that when she returned and discovered the condition of affairs, her 
worthy spouse had some explaining to do. 

On June 19 we again visited this nest and found the male looking out 
of the entrance, as we approached. The nest was found to contain five 
well incubated eggs. The birds did not again use the nest, although the 
plug was replaced. 

On May 25 we succeeded in “lining” the various flights of a watched 
female bird, to where a nest excavation was well under way in a live 
balsam with dead heart, some two hundred feet into the mixed woods, 
from the edge of a clearing covered with stubs and small second growth. 
This excavation was at a height of only about four feet. 

On June 6 the female bird was found sitting on three slightly incubated 
eggs. No difficulty was experienced in getting all the photographs de- 
sired of this bird about the nest entrance and looking out of it: in fact it 
was much more difficult to prevent her entering too quickly, even while 


eine WAL 


THE AUK, VOL. XXXVI. 


ee a 


Arctic THREE-TOED WOODPECKER AND NEST, 


Me aa | Pure AND Bowpisu, New Brunswick Birds. 41 


we were operating at a distance of ten feet, it often being necessary for one 
to stand beside the tree, and even tap on it, to detain her. 

The nest located on May 22 was at a height of about ten feet. The 
cavity measured 103 inches from the lower edge of entrance to bottom. 
The entrance measured 1% inches in height and 13 inches in width. The 
first set of four eggs measured: .99 X .77, 1.01 X .79, .99 X .79, 1.00 X 
.76; the second set of five eggs measured: .99 X .80, .97 X .77, .98 X .80, 
195 >< .76, .97 X .80. 

Within some five hundred feet of the nest that was located on May 25, 
there was a nest hole of the year before, quite possibly having belonged 
to the same pair of birds. It was also in a live balsam with a dead heart, 
at a height of about eight feet. One old nest hole, which quite evidently 
belonged to this species, was only about two feet from the ground. On 
June 6 a nest hole about one half completed, was found in a live balsam 
with dead heart, in open, mixed woods. For some reason this had been 
abandoned. Some four or five additional pairs of these birds were observed 
during the first two weeks of June, but further nests were not located. 

The somewhat limited data secured seem to give prominence to several 
facts in the nesting of this woodpecker in the region under consideration. 
Apparently nest sites are selected indiscriminately, in dead stubs in open 
cleared ground or burnt barrens, and in the woods, where nests are often 
in dead-hearted live trees. The birds have a remarkably strong attach- 
ment for their nests, as evidenced by re-laying in nest holes from which 
eggs had been removed, and their disregard of the immediate presence of 
intruders. The male evidently performs his full share of the work of 
incubation, as well as care of young. New nest holes are apparently dug 
each year, and these may not be in the immediate vicinity of nests of the 
previous year. The site selected tends to be low, only one nest having 
been noted at a height of over ten feet, while one, as noted, was as low as 
two feet. Entrances to nest holes are strongly beveled at the lower edge, 
forming a sort of ‘“ door-step,’’ and more or less at sides and even top. 
While this is true in some cases with the Northern Hairy and some other 
woodpecker excavations which we have examined, it has not proved so 
frequent or pronounced. With experience, one can usually identify the 
nest hole of this species with comparative certainty, by this one feature. 

Tyrannus tyrannus. Kinaprrp.— At least one pair noted each year. 
A nest containing a full complement of three eggs on July 1, 1918, was 
built in a dead spruce on a fence line. 

Nuttallornis borealis. O.ive-smep FrycatcHer.— A nest found 
partly built, on a horizontal branch of a balsam, about thirty-five feet 
from the ground, in open woods, on June 19, 1918, contained two eggs on 
June 26. As no more eggs had been laid by June 29, it appeared that this 
was the full set. 

Empidonax flaviventris. YeLLOw-BELLIED FrycarcHer.— Addi- 
tional nests were found, one on June 21 and two on June 27, 1918, each 
containing four eggs, one of the two latter sets being weil incubated, the 
others fresh. 


Auk 
Jan. 


42 PuILtipe AND BowntsH, New Brunswick Birds. [ 

Euphagus carolinus. Rusry BLackprrp.— A nest with five young, 
two or three days old, was found June 13, 1917. It was built about four 
feet from the ground, in a scrubby spruce, in scanty growth of spruce and 
tamarack, in boggy ground. Exteriorly it was composed of scrubby spruce 
twigs, with a little usnea moss in the foundation, and lined with dry grass, 
some of which retained green color. The female was brooding when the nest 
was found, and remained on the nest until approached within three feet. 
It was evident that several pairs of birds were breeding in the general 
vicinity, as was also the case in 1918. 

Spinus pinus. Pine Sisxrn.— Nesting was just commencing at the 

close of our 1918 visit. One nest contained three eggs on July 1, and two 
others were just being completed. 
& Melospiza lincolni lincolni. Lincoin’s Sparrow.— More common 
than our earlier experience indicated. In 1917 six nests with four eggs 
each were located, June 14, 16, 18, 19, 20 and 27. In 1918 a nest with 
four and another with five eggs were located, June 11, and another with 
five eggs, June 12. 

Vireosylva philadelphica. PHmuapELPpHiA VirEo.— In the abnormal 
season of 1917, no signs of nesting by these birds were noted on a visit on 
June 14, to the locality where they were found in 1916, though two or three 
of the birds were observed. In 1918, however, six additional nests, five 
containing four eggs each, and the sixth three (which was apparently the 
full laying), were located. These corresponded closely with the nests 
found in 1916, as to locality, situation and material, the dates, however, 
averaging a little later, two nests containing fresh eggs as late as June 27. 

Vermivora peregrina. TENNESSEE WaARBLER.— The seasons of 1917 
and 1918 considerably amplified our experience with the breeding of these 
birds. In 1917 nine nests with complete layings of eggs were examined, 
as follows: June 23, five eggs; June 25, six eggs; June 27, two nests with 
six eggs each; June 29, two nests with six eggs each; June 30, five eggs, 
seven eggs; July 2, six eggs. The first nest found in 1918 was June 16, 
six slightly incubated eggs, another on the same date containing five. 
Nests with partially incubated eggs were found as late as June 30, on which 
date, also, the second nest containing young was noted, eggs previously 
found having hatched by June 29. In 1918 no less than thirty-four nests 
were found. Of these three were either deserted or not visited later; one 
contained only three eggs, which the bird assiduously incubated; one 
contained four eggs; eight contained five eggs each; eighteen contained 
six eggs each; three contained seven eggs each. 

The experience of the past two years has demonstrated that while the 
boggy ground nesting, previously described, is the really typical and by 
far the most common form, not a few of these birds nest on higher and 
dryer ground. One such nest, found June 24, 1918, was well up on a steep 
hillside, in rather open woods, on fairly dry ground, utterly devoid of moss 
and grass cover. It was built among a thick growth of dwarf dogwood, 
and under a tiny, crooked stemmed maple sapling, very well concealed, 


oN Puitipr AND Bowptsu, New Brunswick Birds. 43 
and was rather more substantially built than the average nest of this 
species. In the light of much added experience, our earlier statement that 
the usual number of eggs is five is subject to correction, since it appears 
that more full layings of six eggs are to be found than of five. In most 
respects, however, data acquired in the past two years substantiate that 
secured in 1915 and 1916, and previously recorded. 

Compsothlypis americana usnez. NorTHERN PARULA WARBLER.— 
While no nest was located, birds were seen on various occasions, both in 
1917 and 1918, and in the latter year a male in full song was always to be 
found about a particular group of trees, where the abundance of usnea 
moss afforded innumerable ideal nesting sites. 

Dendroica castanea. Bay-BREASTED WARBLER.— This species ap- 
peared to be much more abundant during the past two summers than in 
either of the two preceding. Notwithstanding this abundance, in 1917 
only five nests with complete layings were found, two of five, two of six, 
and one of seven eggs. The earliest was not complete until June 29, and 
it is probable that many nests were still unbuilt at the time we left. In 1918 
we examined a total of thirty-eight occupied nests, complete layings being 
about equally divided between five and six eggs, with one exception, in 
which case a bird was incubating three eggs. The first nests, with five and 
six eggs, were found on June 15, and nests were still being built when we 
left on July 2. No nests with seven eggs were found this year. 

Dendroica virens. Buack-THROATED GREEN WaARBLER.— A nest 
containing five well incubated eggs was found in a little cedar, about four 
feet from the ground, June 20, 1918. 

Dendroica palmarum hypochrysea. YELLow PatmM WARBLER.— 
In 1917 a total of seven nests was found; June 19, four eggs; June 20, 
four eggs; June 21, four eggs, five eggs; June 23, four eggs; June 25, four 
eggs; July 1, five eggs. Lateness of season was more apparent in the nest- 
ing of this species than, perhaps, any other. In 1918 the birds appeared 
less numerous than in previous years, and the only nest located was one 
containing five newly hatched young, June 12. By the 19th these birds 
had left the nest. 

Setophaga ruticilla. Repsrart.— Two nests with five eggs each were 
observed in 1918, June 19 and 24. 

Penthestes hudsonicus littoralis. AcapiaAn CuicKkapEr.— On June 
5, 1917, a nest was found, nearly or quite completed, in a natural cavity 
in a cedar stump, about two feet from the ground. On June 16 the bird 
was sitting hard on five eggs, and was persuaded to come out only with 
great difficulty. As she laid no more, this was apparently her full lay- 
ing. On June 24 a nest containing seven quite small young was found 
in a knot hole in a small live spruce. On June 13, 1918, another nest with 
young was found ina cavity in the top of a dead and rotten stub, about 
ten feet from the ground. This nest was very near the site of the 1917 nest 
with young, very possibly belonging to the same pair of birds. 


ESS 


44 Puitipp AND BowpisuH, New Brunswick Birds. Tam 


SPRING ARRIVALS. 


Field work in 1917 was commenced at a sufficiently early date 
to permit of the noting of the arrival of a number of species, and 
it was further possible to obtain from an experienced guide, who 
has been with us in all of our field work in this section, closely 
approximate arrival dates for a number of additional species which 
had preceded us. While this information is incomplete, migration 
data from the region in question are not so ample as to preclude 
a certain amount of value attaching to the publication of the 
records we thus obtained. 

Dates prior to May 16 were, of course, obtained from the guide, 
and while not exactly accurate, are very nearly so. Figures fol- 
lowing dates indicate the number of birds noted on the date of 
arrival. 

Great Black-backed Gull, June 2 (2). 
Kittiwake, June 2 (considerable numbers). 
Common Tern, May 28 (6). 

American Bittern, May 19 (1). 

Great Blue Heron, June 2 (2). 

Least or Semipalmated Sandpiper or both, May 20 (20) (?) 
Spotted Sandpiper, May 20 (2). 
Black-bellied Plover, May 26 (80-40). 
Chimney Swift, June 6 (10). 

Kingbird, June 16 (2). 

Olive-sided Flycatcher, May 29 (1) 
Bronzed Grackle, about May 7. 

Purple Finch, May 25 (considerable numbers). 
Pine Siskin, June 13 (6). 

Lincoln’s Sparrow, May 27 (2). 

Chipping Sparrow, May 21 (1). 

Junco, about May 4. 

Scarlet Tanager, June 6 (1 male). 

Cliff Swallow, May 31 (6). 

Tree Swallow, May 16 (3). 

Bank Swallow, June 2 (6). 

Blue-headed Vireo, May 27 (2). 

Black and White Warbler, May 27 (1). 


eee eal Wiurams, Birds of Goose Creek, Fla. 45 


Nashville Warbler, June 7 (5). 

Tennessee Warbler, June 1 (8). 

Northern Parula Warbler, June 18 (38). 
Cape May Warbler, June 3 (8 —2 males, 1 female). 
Yellow Warbler, June 13 (1). 

Myrtle Warbler, May 18 (1). 
Black-throated Blue Warbler, May 31 (1). 
Magnolia Warbler, May 27 (3). ° 
Bay-breasted Warbler, June 5 (1 male). 
Black-poll Warbler, May 27 (1). 
Blackburnian Warbler, May 31 (1 male). 
Black-throated Green Warbler, June 5 (2). 
Yellow Palm Warbler, May 18 (2). 
Ovenbird, May 31 (3). 

Wilson’s Warbler, June 10 (6). 

Canadian Warbler, June 11 (1 female). 
Redstart, June 3 (1). 

Red-breasted Nuthatch, May 31 (2). 
Olive-backed Thrush, May 18 (1). 

Hermit Thrush, May 18 (1). 

Robin, about May 4. 


WINTER BIRDS OF EAST GOOSE CREEK, FLORIDA. 
BY R. W. WILLIAMS. 


From November 16 to 24, 1917, I was a guest at the hospitable 
house of my friend, George E. Lewis of Tallahassee, Florida, at 
East Goose Creek, Wakulla County, in that State. We were 
there for a few days’ duck hunt and to enjoy the pleasures and 
recreations of the sea coast. I took advantage of the opportunity 
to make some observations on the birds there as well as in the 
woodlands, prairies, and occasional small fields within two miles. 

East Goose Creek is the designation of a small portion of the 
shore and salt marsh of a quiet bit of more or less land-locked and 


46 Wiuurams, Birds of Goose Creek, Fla. Eee 
shallow water. of the Gulf of Mexico, lying immediately east of 
Goose Creek and about eight miles west of the St. Marks Light 
House and twenty-five miles southwest of Tallahassee. There 
are not more than seven houses at the place, all temporary lodg- 
ings for a few persons who go there intermittently to hunt or fish. 
The family of Lieut. Ludlow Griscom owns one of these houses. 
The place is the base for the operations of a few mullet fishermen 
who sell their catches largely to persons from southern Georgia 
and sections of Florida accessible thereto, who, in turn, go there 
in wagons from time to time in the fall and winter, to lay in a 
supply of fish for personal use. 

Goose Creek is a narrow neck of shallow water cutting into the 
land for a distance of about two miles, in which are numerous oyster 
beds, mud flats, and small bulrush-covered islets, all exposed at 
low tide, thereby furnishing capital feeding grounds for Ducks, 
Shore-birds, Herons, and Gulls. On each side of the Creek vast 
marshes, thickly covered by bulrushes, extend for goodly dis- 
tances to the heavily timbered lands and more or less sterile prairies 
of the region. Along the sandy shore in front of East Goose Creek 
there is a narrow ridge of slight elevation upon which there were 
growing a few scraggly bushes, never more than eight feet high, 
of Ilex vomitoria, Iva frutescens, and Lycium carolinianum, the last 
bearing a delicate, pretty little blue flower during my visit. In 
these bushes I found a few Ruby-crowned Kinglets, a Blue-headed 
Vireo, and numbers of Palm Warblers. The bulrush marshes 
were ornithologically characterized by Scott’s Seaside and Nelson’s 
Sharp-tailed Sparrows, Prairie Marsh Wrens, and Florida Clapper 
Rails, of which there were goodly numbers. The Sparrows and 
Wrens kept themselves well hidden down in the dense rushes and 
rarely appeared to view except when startled by my unexpected 
approach or to answer my squeaking call. The Rails were 
seldom seen; indeed, I saw only two; but their loud cries were 
heard on every side toward dark and at early morning. From their 
abundance and the unwariness of the two individuals seen, I am 
pleased to believe that these birds are not in much requisition for 
sport or food at East Goose Creek. 

Just off the road, in what I call the prairie, about half a mile 
back toward the woodlands, is a small, shallow, muddy pond, 


ee AKT Wiuiams, Birds of Goose Creek, Fla. 47 


surrounded by bulrushes and rank weeds. I passed this pond 
nearly every day and always saw a trio of stately and imperturb- 
able Greater Yellow-legs standing close together in or near its 
center. Passing further back, the pine, scrub palmetto, and 
grassy area is reached. Here the Yellow Palm and Myrtle War- 
blers were abundant, and Phaebes, White-eyed Towhees, Maryland 
Yellow-throats, Pine Warblers, Mockingbirds, Cardinals, Logger- 
head Shrikes, and Brown-headed Nuthatches were fairly repre- 
sented. This area passed, we reach the vast and magnificent 
hammock lands supporting giant pines, magnolias, hickories, 
cedars, sweet gums, live and white oaks, and an occasional cluster 
of immense cypresses, everywhere interspersed with handsome, 
graceful cabbage palmettos which often attain a height of at least 
twenty-five feet. Underbrush is nowhere so dense as to impede 
progress or observation to any serious extent. This hammock 
was alive with birds. I could almost imagine that all the Ruby- 
crowned Kinglets in America had congregated in those woods. 
Brown Creepers were uncommonly numerous, and Hermit Thrushes 
were abundant. Downy and Red-bellied Woodpeckers were 
quite common, and I had the great satisfaction of seeing and listen- 
ing to the imperious notes of no less than half a dozen majestic 
Pileated Woodpeckers. Nestled down in the very bosom of this 
hammock, I ran across a small, grassy pond, completely surrounded 
and hidden from view by a dense fringe of tall saw grass growing 
in the black mud out to the very water’s edge. My companion 
that day was Miss Alice Corry of Quincy, Florida, a charming 
and enthusiastic young lady, who had gone out with me to learn 
what she might about the birds of the region. We felt sure that a 
few Wild Ducks must be feeding in this pond, but the problem 
was how to find it out without flushing them before we could come 
into range for a shot. We cautiously entered the saw grass, but 
quickly discovered that if we would reach the edge of the water 
we must suffer laceration of our hands and the discomfort of wet, 
muddy shoes and clothing. Nevertheless, we persisted, and upon 
reaching an open view of the pond I saw, well within gun range, 
a female Wood Duck energetically feeding in some open water 
between two grassy plots. The bird took no alarm at our presence 
and continued its quest for food. As this species is not now very 


48 Wiuuiams, Birds of Goose Creek, Fla. [fue 
abundant and also is protected for a term of years by the Federal 
Migratory Bird Law, I had no purpose to shoot it. I still felt that 
other ducks must be somewhere on the pond, but our unusually 
loud conversation failed to stir them. We made our way back to 
dry land and walked around to another side of the pond. By 
this time our hands were actually dripping blocd from the numer- 
ous and in some instances deep, cuts inflicted by the saw grass. 
We decided that my companion should fire her gun and I would 
be ready for any legitimate game that might flush in consequence. 
At the explosion, a large flock of ducks rose, out of which I knocked 
down two, but recovered only one — a male Pintail. On another 
occasion I killed a Green-winged Teal out of a flock of ducks, inelud- 
ing some Mallards, flushed from this pond, the vicinity of which, 
I may add, was a favorite resort for several species of the smaller 
birds. Here, early in the mornings, I found Brown Thrashers, 
White-throated Sparrows, Ruby-crowned Kinglets, Golden-crowned 
Kinglets, Maryland Yellow-throats, and Orange-crowned Warblers, 
quite abundant. I was informed that Wild Turkeys are occasion- 
ally met with in these woods. George Lewis killed one there in 
November, 1916. 

For a general pleasure outing, weather conditions during my 
stay at East Goose Creek could hardly have been improved. We 
slept on the porch most comfortably, despite the chill of the night 
atmosphere. Each day was ushered in by the raucous voices of 
hundreds of Florida and Fish Crows which passed in a steady 
stream just beyond land in front of our house. They were always 
headed in the same direction,— toward their feeding grounds 
somewhere to the westward of Goose Creek. They returned 
pretty consistently over the same route toward dark-every even- 
ing. I did not have an opportunity to follow them to their roost 
which, apparently, is not many miles east of Goose Creek. With- 
out much doubt, this is the St. Marks roost referred to by Mr. 
Kalmbach in his article entitled “Winter Crow Roosts”’ in the 
‘Yearbook’ of the Department of Agriculture for 1915, page 92. 

Large flocks of Canada Geese were always in sight or hearing. 
They were feeding out in the bay around the grassy islands a mile 
or two from the mainland. 

Among the ducks at Goose Creek I was surprised to note the 


poner Witurams, Birds of Goose Creek, Fla. 49 


great preponderance of Mallards and Pintails. The quacking of 
the former was heard at all times of day as they fed, out of gun 
range, in the Creek, or rested in the open water out in front of the 
main shore. One afternoon, at low tide, we discovered a large 
flock of Mallards and Pintails, with a few individuals of other 
species, feeding on a mud flat in the Creek, but they took wing 
before we could arrive within gun range. 

Great Blue Herons were fairly numerous all along the shores at 
both high and low tide. Least and Red-backed Sandpipers were 
not uncommon and fed together in small flocks along the beach 
and on the mud flats and oyster beds. Ospreys and Marsh Hawks 
were constantly beating to and fro, the former over the waters 
and the latter over the marshes and prairies. Like George Caven- 
dish Taylor (Ibis, IV, 135), I observed that the Ospreys while 
flying with fish in their talons invariably hold them in a position 
parallel with the birds’ bodies and with the fish’s head always fore- 
most. 

I was delighted one day to see two Snowy Egrets feeding at a 
small, isolated pond, situated on the edge of one of the prairies 
and at the commencement of a rather heavily timbered area. Not 
only the woods and prairies, but also the salt marshes, oyster beds, 
mud flats, and shores were infested by ‘ 
name for the semi-wild hogs that roam at large in many portions 
of Florida. They are essentially omnivorous and I can _ well 
imagine that the ground-nesting species of birds in that region have 
somewhat of a struggle to perpetuate their kind. My observa- 
tions of the birds at East Goose Creek were conducted without 
special or systematic effort, as I had gone there primarily for other 


‘razor-backs,”’ — a local 


purposes. Nevertheless, I recorded ninety species during my 
brief visit, a list of which concludes this paper. 

Goose Creek has already made its début in ornithological 
literature. Lieut. Ludlow Griscom published a nominal list of 95 
species seen there by him in December, 1915. (Sixteenth Christ- 
mas Bird Census, Bird-Lore, XVIII, 31). Of these, 85 were seen 
on the 29th and 10 on two other days. His estimate of the total 
number of individuals of the 85 species seen on the 29th was 7,085. 
In his list are 21 species which I did not see, namely, Pied-billed 
Grebe, Loon, Laughing Gull, Royal Tern, Florida Cormorant, 


[ian. 


50 Wiuurams, Birds of Goose Creek, Fla. 


Ring-necked Duck, Baldpate, Shoveller, Redhead, Bufflehead, 
Semipalmated Sandpiper, Sanderling, Turnstone, Florida Barred 
Owl, Goldfinch, Savannah Sparrow, Louisiana Seaside Sparrow, 
Towhee, Winter Wren, Short-billed Marsh Wren and Blue-gray 
Gnatcatcher. My list includes 16 species which he did not see. 
Perhaps he did not visit the woodlands and fields covered by me, 
which would account for the absence from his list of most of these 16. 
It is likely, also, that had I prosecuted my explorations as thor- 
oughly and as systematically as he did his, | would have accounted 
for a number of species in his list which are absent from mine. 
Our combined lists show 111 species recorded at East Goose Creek 
and in the immediate vicinity in the months of November and 
December alone. With the summer residents and spring and fall 
migrants added to this number, it is apparent that East Goose 
Creek is something of an ornithological field. 


LIST OF SPECIES. 


1. Colymbus auritus. Hornep Grese.— Several seen on the main 
waters of the bay and on the Creek. They exhibited very little fear of us. 
Two were mistaken for ducks and shot by one of our party. 

2. Larus argentatus. Herrina Guiu.— Several seen daily around 
the main waters of the bay and over the Creek. 

3. Larus delawarensis. Rinc-pitLep Guiu.— A few seen from time 
to time around the main waters of the bay. 

4. Pelecanus occidentalis. Brown PELIcan. 
day flying together over the Creek. 

5. Mergus serrator. Rrp-BREASTED MERGANSER.— One was killed 
by Mr. Robert Gamble in the Creek. 

6. Lophodytes cucullatus. Hooprp Mrercanser.— We picked up 
a wounded bird of this species on the shore of a small island in the Creek. 

7. Anas platyrhynchos. Matiarp.— Common on all the waters 
we visited. This and the Pintail were the predominant ducks at and 
around Goose Creek. We also found them in a fresh water pond, back in 
the hammock lands. They mingled freely with other species of ducks, 
especially the Pintails. 

8. Anas rubripes. Brack Ducx.— Fairly abundant and found in 
flocks with the other species of ducks. 

9. Chaulelasmus streperus. Gapweii.— One of Mr. Gamble’s 
day’s bags contained two of this species, killed in the Creek. 

10. Nettion carolinense. GrerEeN-wiNceD TrEaL.—I procured one 


Two were seen one 


On vidal Wiuurams, Birds of Goose Creek, Fla. 51 


out of a flock of Mallards and Pintails flushed from a fresh water pond 
back in the hammock lands. 

11. Dafila acuta. Prnrarm.— Common on all the waters we visited. 
This and the Mallard were the predominant ducks at and around Goose 
Creek. We also found them in a fresh water pond back in the hammock 
lands. They mingled freely with other species of ducks, especially the 
Mallards. 

12. Aix sponsa. Woop Ducx.—I saw a female feeding in a fresh 
water pond back in the hammock lands. 

13. Marila affinis. Lesser Scaup Duck.— One of Mr. Gamble’s 
day’s bags exhibited to me contained two of this species, killed on the Creek. 

14. Branta canadensis canadensis. Canapa Goosre.— On two or 
three occasions I saw a flock containing at least 250 individuals, and daily 
saw flocks of lesser size. ‘They were quite wild and wary, but their honking 
was heard at all hours of the day. They frequented the open waters of the 
bay and the edges of the large marshes about two miles in front of East 
Goose Creek. We did not succeed in procuring a single specimen. 

15. Ardea herodias .herodias. Great Biur Heron.— Fairly 
numerous at all times, feeding on the shores and in the shallow waters of 
the bay and the Creek. 

16. Egretta candidissima candidissima. Snowy Ecret.— On the 
morning of November 22, I saw two of these dainty birds standing close 
together on the muddy shore of a small, isolated pond in one of the prairie 
areas about three-quarters of a mile back of East Goose Creek. 

17. Hydranassa tricolor ruficollis. Lourstana Heron.— Two were 
seen one morning feeding in the shallow water, at low tide, on a mud flat 
in the Creek. 

18. Florida cerulea. Lirrne Buur Heron.— On several occasions 
I saw one or two feeding, at low tide, in the shallow water off the main 
beach. 

19. Rallus crepitans scotti. FLorma Cuapper Ratu.— Fairly 
abundant in the bulrush marsh between the Creek and the road. They 
were very noisy near and just after nightfall and in the early morning. 
Although I explored a large section of the marsh I succeeded in flushing 
only one, and that close to the Gamble house within a few yards of the road 
leading to the East Goose Creek beach. Only one other bird was actually 
seen. It was feeding just before dark in a small open plot between the 
edge of the bulrushes and the beach. Mrs. Lewis called me from the 
house to see it. The specimen was collected. 

20. Gallinago delicata. Wutson’s Snipe.—On several occasions 
I flushed one or two in the bulrush marsh between the Creek and the road. 

-21. Pisobia minutilla, Least SANDPIPER.— Quite abundant on 
the main beach and on the oyster beds, mud flats, and shores of the Creek, 
at low tide, where they mingled freely with Red-backed Sandpipers and 
Killdeers. They were so indifferent to us that I concluded they had not 
recently been shot at. A few were flushed on several occasions from small, 
barren spaces in the bulrush marsh. 


52 Wirams, Birds of Goose Creek, Fla. (faa 


22. Pelidna alpina sakhalina. Rep-Backep SaNnppipeR.— Fairly 
numerous wherever the Least Sandpipers occurred, as above stated. They, 
too, showed little fear of us, and when one day a Least Sandpiper was 
unintentionally wounded by a shot from my gun, and fluttered for some 
moments in the spot where shot, two Red-backed Sandpipers, moved by 
commiseration for a companion in distress or by some other very strong 
impulse, flew to the spot and hovered around the sandpiper with half 
extended wings for some seconds. 

23. Totanus melanoleucus. GrraTeR YELLOW-LEGS.— Only three 
were seen. These I found practically every day of my visit, feeding in a 
small, shallow, muddy pond just off the road leading to East Goose Creek 
through one of the prairie areas about half a mile back. Whenever I saw 
them they were standing abreast, erect, motionless, and apparently re- 
garding us with some degree of doubt as to whether we were hostile or not. 

24. Catoptrophorus semipalmatus inornatus. WerEsTERN WILLET. 
—I did not attempt to collect a specimen, but there is little doubt that 
those I saw, about four in number, flying over the main beach, were of the 
western form, as the eastern bird winters extralimitally. 

25. Squatarola squatarola. BLAcK-BELLIED PLOvER.— Only one 
was seen, flying over the main beach. 

26. Oxyechus vociferus. Kitiprer.— Fairly abundant about all 
the waters visited except the saw grass pond in the hammock, where con- 
ditions were not suitable for them. They mingled freely with the other 
shore birds on the beach, mud flats, and oyster beds. 

27. #gialitis semipalmata. SremipatmareD PrLover.— Only one 
was seen, feeding on a mud flat in the Creek with Least and Red-backed 
Sandpipers. 

28. Zenaidura macroura carolinensis. Movurninac Dove.— Sev- 
eral seen from time to time feeding on the damp, sandy spaces in the bul- 
rush marsh between the main beach and our house. 

29. Cathartes aura septentrionalis. Turkey VuiTrure.— Fairly 
common around the Creek, bulrush marshes, and in the back country. 

30. Catharista urubu. Brack VuLiturs.— Only two seen, back 
near the heavily timbered areas. This species occurs much less abundantly 
in the maritime sections than the preceding. 

31. Circus hudsonius. Marsa Hawx.— Fairly common over the 
bulrush marshes and prairies. 

32. Accipiter velox. SHarp-sHINNED Hawk.— One was seen to 
dash into the cluster of water oaks and cedars near the Gamble house. 

33. Accipiter cooperi. Coorrr’s Hawk.— Two were seen flying 
over the marsh in front of our house. 

34. Buteo borealis borealis. Rep-rarLep Hawk.— One was seen 
to enter a heavy woodland from an old field about two miles back of East 
Goose Creek, and the dead body of another was lying in front of the house 
of our laundress near the same place. 

35. Buteo lineatus alleni. Fiorma Rep-sHoULDERED. HAwK.— 


ae | Wiuurams, Birds of Goose Creek, Fla. 53 


Several were seen back in the prairies and in the immediate vicinity of the 
woodlands. 

36. Buteo platypterus. Broap-wincep Hawk.— One seen flying 
over an old field about two miles back of East Goose Creek. 

37. Halieetus leucocephalus leucocephalus. Barp Eacur.— 
Several seen, from time to time, in both adult and immature plumages, 
flying over the Creek and adjacent marsh. 

38. Falco columbarius columbarius. Piceon Hawx.— One seen 
flying within three or four feet of the ground between ordinary high water 
mark and the sandy ridge along the main beach in front of East Goose 
Creek. 

39. Falco sparverius sparverius. Sparrow Hawx.— Fairly abun- 
dant. Usually seen. circling over or flying across the bulrush marsh be- 
tween the Creek and the road. 

40. Pandion haligetus carolinensis. Osprey.— Fairly common. 
Seen daily over all the waters of the bay and Creek, occasionally with 
fish in their talons. They seemed unafraid of us and on several occasions 
flew directly over us, although we were in plain sight of the birds for some 
moments before they reached us. 

41. Bubo virginianus virginianus. Great Horned OwL.— 
Shortly after daybreak one morning, I heard the notes of one from a heavy 
woodland on the western side of the Creek. 

42. Ceryle alcyon alcyon. Br.ttep KinerisHer.— Fairly common 
around all the salt water sections visited. 

43. Dryobates pubescens pubescens. SourHErRN Downy Woop- 
PECKER.— Quite common in the hammocks and other wooded areas within 
two miles of East Goose Creek. 

44. Dryobates borealis. Rrp-cocKADED WOODPECKER. 
in a pine grove about two miles back of Hast Goose Creek. 

45. Sphyrapicus varius varius. YELLOW-BELLIED SAPSUCKER.— 
Three seen, in the hammocks about a mile and a half back of East Goose 
Creek. 

46. Phleotomus pileatus pileatus. PiteateEpD WoopPpEcKER.— 
I had the rare pleasure of seeing six of these birds, —a handsome race, 
once numerous but now almost in the shadow of extinction over a large 
area of its normal range. They were at all times noisy, as is usual with the 
species. Hach bird exhibited a spirit of restlessness and excitement which 
seemed quite apart from any anxiety over our presence in their haunts. 
All were seen in the magnificent hammocks within two miles of East 
Goose Creek. 

47. Centurus carolinus. Rep-BevuieD WoopPpECKER.— Quite abun- 
dant in the hammock lands, where they were somewhat noisy. On 
several occasions, as I stood in one of these fine hammocks, I listened to a 
medley of notes of Downy, Pileated, and Red-bellied Woodpeckers and 
Flickers. It was no mean treat, I can avouch. 

48. Colaptes{auratus auratus. Fiicker.— Not uncommon in the 


One seen, 


54 Wiuurams, Birds of Goose Creek, Fla. Fas 


Jan. 


hammocks where I found other woodpeckers. It is possible, if not prob- 
able, that some of these birds were of the northern form (luteus). Indeed, 
it is possible that they all were such; but as I took no specimens for exami- 
nation, I have listed the resident form. 

49. Sayornis phoebe. PuHoesn.— I] was surprised to find these birds 
so abundant. They were usually in brushy and weedy areas sparsely 
dotted with medium sized pines. 

50. Cyanocitta cristata florincola. FLormDA Buiur Jay.— Met 
with in all the timbered areas visited, and on several occasions one was 
seen in the pines close to our house. 

51. Corvus brachyrhynchos pascuus. FiLoripa Crow.— The 
crows of the East Goose Creek region, including the Fish Crows, had 
amalgamated for the winter, with feeding grounds somewhere west of 
the Creek. I saw them wending their way to these grounds, every morn- 
ing, in a steady stream and returning over the same general route, to their 
roost east of the Creek, every evening. I did not find fhem to any apprecia- 
ble extent beyond this beaten path. A stray one was now and then seen 
feeding on an oyster bed in the Creek. 

52. Corvus ossifragus. Fish Crow.— The above note on the 
Florida Crow is applicable alike to this species, with this addition, that the 
Fish Crows seemed to be more numerous. 

53. Agelaius phoeniceus floridanus. Frormpa Rep-wincEep BLAcK- 
BIRD.— Numerous, in flocks around the bulrush marshes. 

54. Sturnella magna argutula. SouTHERN MrapowiarRK.— Fairly 
common in the prairies and brushy pine areas, and not infrequently flushed 
in the bulrush marshes. 

55. Quiscalus quiscula agleus. FLoripa GrackLe.— These were 
seen in flocks several times, flying low over the Creek and adjacent marshes. 

56. Megaquiscalus major major. Boat-raibep GrackLE.— Com- 
mon, in the bulrush marshes and on the oyster beds and mud flats in the 
Creek. They were quite noisy at all times. 

57. Pooscetes gramineus gramineus. VurspEr SparRow.— Quite 
abundant in an old corn field about two miles back of East Goose Creek. 

58. Passerherbulus nelsoni nelsoni. NELSON’s SHARP-TAILED 
Sparrow.— A specimen taken was identified by Mr. Oberholser as of this 
race. They were quite common in the marsh between the Creek and the 
road. 

59. Passerherbulus maritimus peninsule. Scorr’s SHASIDE 
Sparrow.— Three specimens taken were identified by Mr. Oberholser as 
of this race. They were numerous in all the bulrush marshes of the 
mainland and in those about two miles out in front of East Goose Creek. 
They were difficult to flush and when flushed quickly disappeared again 
in the thick masses of bulrushes. 

60. Zonotrichia albiccllis. Wuirs-THROATED Sparrow.— A few 
were seen in the low trees and growths on the edge of the saw grass pond 
in the hammock about a mile and a half back of East Goose Creek. I was 
somewhat surprised to find them in such a heavily timbered section. 


poe | WiuuiAms, Birds of Goose Creek, Fla. 55 


61. Spizella passerina passerina. CuHippinc SpARRow.— Numerous 
in an old corn field about two miles back of East Goose Creek. 

62. Melospiza melodia melodia. Sona Sparrow.— A few were met 
with in all the sections visited, except the densely timbered areas. In the 
bulrush marshes they were found only on and near the edges, never in 
the interior sections. 

63. Melospiza georgiana. Swamp Sparrow.— A few were seen in 
the bulrushes and tall weeds around the occasional marshy places in the 
prairies. 

64. Pipilo erythrophthalmus alleni. Wuitr-ryep TowHrr.— 
A specimen taken in the sparsely timbered, scrub-palmetto and weedy 
area on the side of, and touching, the East Goose Creek road about a mile 
back, proved to be of this race, and I assume that most, if not all the 
Towhees seen and heard during my visit were such. They were fairly 
common. Lieut. Griscom includes the common Towhee in his list. 

65. Cardinalis cardinalis cardinalis. Carpinau.— Fairly common 
in the dry land areas back of East Goose Creek. 

66. Iridoprocne bicolor. Tree Swattow.— Quite abundant. They 
were seen at various times flying low, back and forth, over the bulrush 
marshes; also, at times, at a greater elevation. 

67. Lanius lodovicianus ludovicianus. LoccmeRHnap SHRIKE.— 
Fairly common in the open areas of dry land sparsely dotted with pines 
and stunted live oaks. Occasionally one visited the three or four pines 
close to our house. 

68. Lanivireo solitarius solitarius. BLur-HEapep Vrreo.— Only 
one seen. It was in the low bushes on the sandy ridge a few feet back of 
ordinary high water mark near the landing at East Goose Creek. 

69. Vermivora celata celata. ORrANGE-cROWNED WARBLER.— 
Fairly numerous in the hammock lands. 

70. Dendroica coronata. Myrrte Warpsier.— Met with in large 
numbers wherever there were trees. 

71. Dendroica dominica dominica. YrLLOW-THROATED WARBLER. 
— Fairly common in the hammock lands. 

72. Dendroica vigorsi. Pine Warpsier.— Fairly common in the 
hammock lands and in the pine land areas. 

73. ‘Dendroica palmarum palmarum. Paum WarsiEerR.— Com- 
mon both in the pine and stunted live oak areas and in the scrubby bushes 
on the sandy ridge at the East Goose Creek beach. 

74. Dendroica palmarum hypochrysea. YELLOW PauM WARBLER. 
— Common in the pine and stunted live oak areas; usually found on and 
close to the ground. 

75. Geothlypis trichas ignota. FLoripa YELLOw-THRoaT.— The 
only specimen taken was identified as one of this race. This handsome 
little warbler was common in the country immediately back of East Goose 
Creek where it frequented the damp areas grown up with rank weeds and 
grass. I also found it in the scrubby bushes and palmettos on the edge of 
the woodlands. A few were always seen in the saw grass around the pond 


56 Wituiams, Birds of Goose Creek, Fla. eS 


Jan. 


in one of the large hammocks. The rich yellow of its under-parts stood 
out in conspicuous contrast with the rich black of its head and cheeks as 
the bright rays of the sun enveloped it in the dark green maze of its haunts. 

76. Anthus rubescens. Prprr.— Quite common on the open sandy 
areas of the bulrush marshes adjacent to the waters of the bay and the 
Creek. 

77. Mimus polyglottos polyglottos. Mockrnapirp.— Usually 
found in the open, sparsely timbered areas and in the brush on each side 
of the road. One was occasionally seen in the pines close to our house. 

78. Toxostoma rufum. Brown THRAsHER.— Abundant in the 
more heavily timbered areas, especially in the hammocks. 

79. Thryothorus ludovicianus ludovicianus. CaroLtiInA WREN.— 
Fairly abundant in the hammocks. 

80. Troglodytes aedon aedon. House Wren.— A few were found 
in the brushy areas in the hammocks. 

8i. Telmatodytes palustris iliacus. Pratrm Marsh Wren.— 
Marsh Wrens were very abundant in all the bulrush marshes. Only two 
specimens were taken. One has been identified by Dr. Oberholser as of 
this subspecies and the other as of his subspecies, the Louisiana Marsh 
Wren (7. p. thryophilus), but as the A. O. U. Committee has not yet 
admitted the latter subspecies to the Check List, thereby leaving its 
validity in doubt, I have not assigned it a status in this list. The Marsh 
Wrens were as reluctant to emerge from the reclusive depths of their 
haunts as were the Seaside Sparrows, and I had some difficulty in pro- 
curing the two specimens. 

82. Certhia famiiaris americana. BrowN CreepEer.— Abundant 
in the hammocks, where they mingled freely with Kinglets, Titmice, 
Chickadees, and Downy Woodpeckers. 

83. Sitta pusilla. Brown-Heapep NutTHatcu.— Several found in 
the open, sparsely timbered, pine land areas. 

84. Beolophus bicolor. Turrep Tirmousn.— Fairly numerous in 
the more heavily timbered areas, especially in the hammocks. 

85. Penthestes carolinensis carolinensis. CaroLiNa CHICKADEE. 
— Fairly numerous in all the timbered areas, especially in the hammocks. 

86. Regulus satrapa satrapa. GoLDEN-cROWNED KiInGLetT.—A 
few were seen, in the hammocks, but not elsewhere. 

87. Regulus calendula calendula. Ruspy-crowNep KINGLET.— 
They were legion in the hammocks and some were found in the low bushes 
on the sandy ridge separating the bulrush marsh from ordinary high water 
mark on the beach. 

88. Hylocichla guttata pallasi. Hermwir Tarusa.— Abundant in 
the hammocks, where they spend most of their time on and near the ground. 

89. Planesticus migratorius migratorius. Rosprn.—I was _ sur- 
prised to find this bird so searce. I saw it only once, when a small flock 
was discovered flying high near one of the hammocks. 

90. Sialia sialis sialis. BrLursirp.— Quite abundant, in small flocks 
here and there throughout the sparsely timbered areas. 


oe Sad BuiackweLper, Birds of the Upper Yukon. Bys 


NOTES ON THE SUMMER BIRDS OF THE UPPER 
YUKON REGION, ALASKA. 


BY ELIOT BLACKWELDER. 


In the summer of 1915 I made a journey to that part of eastern 
Alaska lying south and southwest of the Yukon River, and north- 
east of the Tanana. Although the object of the trip was geological, 
the birds were given such attention as opportunity permitted. 
Not being properly equipped for collecting specimens, my chief 
reliance for identification was a ten power Terlux binocular glass. 
The route traversed was along the Yukon River from White Horse 
in Yukon territory to Circle, thence westward across the moun- 
tains to the White Mountain range near the head of Beaver Creek. 
We descended Beaver Creek to the Yukon Flats and emerged upon 
the Yukon itself near Beaver village— about seventy miles below 
Ft. Yukon. From that point we returned up the river as we came. 

The region has been sufficiently described by previous explorers,! 
and especially by members of the U. S. Geological Survey. In 
addition, ornithological investigations have been made along the 
Yukon. No ornithologist, however, has visited the remote White 
‘Mountains. 

Most of the region is mountainous, but the relief is less than 
3000 feet, and the highest peaks but little over 5000. Along the 
rivers there are some spacious basins. Of these the largest is the 
so-called Yukon Flats between Circle and old Fort Hamlin, an 
area of more than 7000 square miles. 

Timber-line is about 2500 feet above sea level, but varies accord- 
ing to the direction of the slope, the nature of the soil and some 


1 Dawson, G. M., Explorations in Yukon and northern British Columbia; Geol. Survey 
of Canada Rept. for 1887-1888. Report B. 

Prindle, L. M., A geological reconnaissance of the Fairbanks Quadrangle, Alaska: 
U.S. Geol. Survey Bull. 525, 1913. 

Russell, I. C., Notes on the surface geology of Alaska: Bull. G.S. A. Vol. 1, 1890, 
pp. 72-99; 154-155. 

Spurr, J. E., Geology of the Yukon gold district, Alaska: U. S. Geol. Survey Ann. 
Rept. 18, pt. 3, pp. 87-392, 1897. 


58 BLACKWELDER, Birds of the Upper Yukon. es 


other factors. This ill-defined limit separates the two distinct 
life zones of the region,— the Arctic-Alpine above and the Hudso- 
nian below. Of the two, the latter is the larger in area and com- 
prises all of the principal valleys. It is characterized by a dense 
growth of spruce, in which the trees are usually of rather small size. 
Near timber-line they are also of low stature. Along some of the 
larger streams we found spruce trees more than two feet in diam- 
eter, but they are by no means common. Alders, aspens, and wil- 
lows form dense thickets along the streams and even around 
hillside springs. The white birch grows along the bottoms of the 
larger valleys, such as that of Beaver Creek. Although grass and 
other forms of herbage spring up in many places on the south- 
facing slopes, the prevailing cover of the ground is a thick carpet 
of brownish moss and lichens, which is evidently a botanic com- 
plex of many distinct species. This moss complex prevails not 
only in the spruce forest, but almost everywhere that it can gain 
foothold. Over certain large areas, especially where the slopes 
are gentle or nearly flat, it forms what is locally known as “ nigger- 
head tundra,” in which the tussocks apparently consist of certain 
coarse bunch-grasses, half smothered by the thick carpet of moss 
and lichens. Walking over this tundra is very fatiguing, owing to 
the insecurity of foothold and the soft yielding nature of the turf. 
Early in August dwarf blueberries are very abundant and char- 
acteristic of the tundra. A little later a small prostrate variety 
of cranberry ripens, especially in the more moist situations. 
The characteristic summer birds of the spruce forests are the 
Hudsonian Chickadee, the Ruby-crowned Kinglet, the Robin, the 
Slate-colored Junco, and the Alaskan Jay. A species of rabbit 
is about the only mammal commonly seen, although there is evi- 
dence that the moose, black bear, lynx, and other large mammals 
are rather common. 
At timber-line the spruce becomes scattered and stunted, through 
a narrow zone in which the dwari birch and dwarf willow are 
abundant. The former generally grows in dense thickets, which 
are a serious obstacle to travel. Most of the alpine zone, however, 
is characterized by the usual covering of mosses and various kinds 
of grassy and flowering plants. In many places the gentler moun- 
tain slopes are veritable flower gardens during June and July. 


Ve inal BLACKWELDER, Birds of the Upper Yukon. 59 


In the summer this zone is inhabited by caribou, in roving groups or 
individuals, a few little bands of Dall’s White Sheep, the Ptarmi- 
gans, Longspurs, Wheatears, Gray-crowned Rosy Finches, Pipits, 
and Duck Hawks. Neither reptiles nor amphibians were observed, 
and even insect life, with the exception of the ubiquitous mosquito, 
appears to be rather scarce. 

The Yukon Flats are a plain covered with alternating swamps, 
lakes and forests, and permeated by meandering rivers tributary 
to the Yukon. 

The luxuriant verdure of the Flats seems to pass through a 
definite ecologic cycle in which three stages are tolerably distinct. 
The newly abandoned gravel and sand bars are soon overgrown 
with dense willows, and the silt banks by horse-tail (Equisetum) 
reeds and tall grasses. When no longer subject to frequent over- 
flow, the poplars, chiefly the Balm-of-Gilead and a species of 
aspen, grow up among the willows, smother them and form dense 
thickets. During the latter part of this stage, on fairly well 
drained land, the white paper-birch develops and may grow to a 
diameter of more than a foot. In the shade provided by the pop- 
lar and birch thickets, the spruce is slowly seeded and, eventually 
growing toa greater height, exterminates both of them by its deep 
shade. The permanent forest has then become a solid stand of 
spruce, in which the trees range up to about two feet in diameter. 
The characteristic small growth in its dark recesses consists of 
alders, the red currant, certain ferns, and a thin carpet of lichens 
and mosses. The bayous and swamps have a distinctive flora of 
reeds, grasses, and especially mosses, which apparently prevent 
the growth of trees even when the swamp has become solidly filled. 
The blueberries and the low-bush cranberries are locally plentiful 
on these moss-covered swamp flats and on such as have not been 
appropriated by the forests. The berries are, however, very much 
less characteristic of the Flats than of the hilly region to the south. 

Although there is a definite tendency for the permanent spruce 
forest to spread over the entire area, actual observations show that 
it is decidedly patchy in its distribution, and in some areas covers 
only a small proportion of the ground, in comparison to the swamp, 
willow, and poplar floras. This is apparently due in part to forest 
fires, but chiefly to the annual inroads of the meandering streams. 


Auk 
Jan. 


60 BuAcKWELpDER, Birds of the Upper Yukon. | 
After a spruce grove has once been mowed down by the gradual 
advance of a meander, it evidently requires several decades and 
probably more than a century for the spruce to regain its lost terri- 
tory, which meanwhile has passed through the willow and poplar- 
bireh stages. 

During the short summer season the wilderness of the Flats is 
well stocked with birds. While drifting down Beaver and Birch 
Creeks we were frequently attended by solitary Loons (Gavia 
stellata) which now and then broke the general stillness with their 
weird and almost human cries. Several companies of Brown 
Cranes were seen stalking along the gravel bars, and hundreds of 
Geese were congregating in flocks preparatory to their southward 
flight. Large Horned Owls were so numerous along the willow- 
lined banks of Bireh Creek that in one day we saw six of them in 
broad daylight. Probably the most common birds in the Flats 
are the various species of Ducks and Phalaropes which breed in 
countless numbers in the many scattered ponds and bayous. 

The following detailed notes may have some value as coming from 
a remote and little known region: 


Colymbus auritus(?). Earep Gresr. — Two seen August 12 on the 
sluggish lower course of Birch Creek in the Yukon Flats. 

Gavia pacifica. Paciric Loon.— Several seen August 15 on the side 
channels of the Yukon, 50 miles below Ft. Yukon. 

Gavia, stellata. Rep-Neckep Loon.— Common on Beaver Creek in 
August both in the mountains and on the flats. Often swam ahead of our 
raft for miles keeping at a distance of about 1000 feet and frequently 
voicing its weird wail. 

Larus argentatus(?). Herrinc Guit.— Common along the Yukon. 
Nests on the gravel bars of Beaver Creek, in mountains. Young able to 
fly were observed about August 1. This is the northwestern limit of its 
known breeding range. 

Mergus serrator. Rep-BREASTED MrrRGANSER.— Rather common on 
the larger creeks and on the Yukon. Young not yet able to fly, seen 
August 10. Last seen August 26 on the Lewes River near Lake Labarge. 

Mareca americana. AMERICAN W1pGEOoN.— The most common duck 
on the marshy lakes of the Birch Creek flats. 

Nettion carolinense (?). GRrreN-wincep Trau.— A teal, apparently 
this species, rather common in the Beaver Creek flats early in August. 

Dafila acuta. Pinratt.— Two seen after being shot at Dawson, 
August 20. 

Histrionicus histrionicus. Hartequin Duckx.— A few, singly or 


‘Vol. ot 
1919 


BuacKweLpER, Birds of the Upper Yukon. 61 


in pairs, were seen on the swift upper tributaries of Beaver Creek in July. 

Branta canadensis hutchinsi (?) Hurcutns’ Goosr.— Nests along 
Beaver creek from Willow Creek to the flats. Flocks were seen on the 
gravel bars in the middle of August and again on the Yukon flats. Some 
young still unable to fly were found about August 5. 

Grus canadensis. Lirrne Brown Crane.— Common in August on 
Beaver creek at the edge of the flats. One that was shot had blueberries 
in its crop. At this time they go in small flocks of three to eight. When 
alarmed they give out a loud guttural croak or clatter that sounds like the 

rattling of a pebble in a tin can. 

Gallinago delicata. Wutson’s Snrpr.— One seen at Dawson August 
20. Common in the marshy flats of Birch Creek, July-August 15. Has a 
habit of flving overhead in the evening like a nighthawk, although more 
rapidly, meanwhile making a strange whistling sound. 

Pisobia bairdi. Barrp’s SanppreeR.— Only four were seen. 

Helodromas solitarius cinnamomeus. WesterN Souitary SAND- 
pirpeR.— A few were seen along Beaver Creek in the flats. 

Actitis macularia. Sprorrep Sanppreer.— Widely scattered along 
the Yukon and its tributaries far back into the mountains. 

Lagopus sp. Prarmican.— A Ptarmigan, with much white on the 
wings and tail, is common on.heather slopes above timber-line. Young 
learning to fly July 1-10. 

Circus hudsonius. Marsa Hawx.— Common in the marshes of the 
Birch Creek flats. 

Accipiter velox. SHaArp-sHINNED Hawk.— Common on lower Birch 


‘Creek. 


Buteo sp.— Large soaring hawks of unknown species from dark brown 
to light gray seen throughout the region. 

Archibuteo lagopus sancti-johannis. American ROUGH-LEGGED 
Hawk.— Several seen in the Birch Creek flats. 

Aquila chrysaétos. GoipEN Eacir.— Not uncommon in the moun- 
tains west of Circle. One pair with fledglings was found occupying a 
bulky nest of sticks in a high dolomite crag on the southeast slope of the 
White Mountains, July 17. 

Halizétus leucocephalus alascanus. Axaska BaLtp Eacur.— Not 
very common. Two adults were seen in the White Mountains and three 
in the flats of Beaver Creek early in August. 

Falco peregrinus anatum. Duck Hawx.— Common _ wherever 
suitable nesting sites are available among high crags or rock spires in the 
Yukon canyon and especially in the White Mountains. It is very pugna- 
cious, and often attempts to drive an intruding man out of its locality by 
diving at him repeatedly and with incessant screeching. 

Scotiaptex nebulosa nebulosa. Grear Gray Ow1i.— The wings 
and head of a dead bird were seen in a cabin at Beaver. The bird had 
been killed nearby, but the date was not known. Another skin was nailed 
up on a house at Yukon Crossing, Y. T. 


Auk 
Jan. 


62 BLACKWELDER, Birds of the Upper Yukon. [ 

Bubo virginianus saturatus. Dusky Hornep Ow.u.— A rather dark 
variety, with prominent sulphur patches on the sides. Fairly common 
everywhere but actually abundant (six seen in one day) along the Beaver 
and Birch Creek flats. Often hunts in daylight. The call of the male is 
shorter and of lower pitch than that of the female. A parent bird was seen 
teaching a full-grown young to hunt on August 13. 

Surnia ulula caparoch. Hawk Owx.— Not uncommon in the tundra 
and serub spruce areas on Beaver Creek. Seen hunting in daytime. 

Ceryle alcyon alcyon. Brtrep KrncrisHer.— Locally common, in 
the flats of Beaver and Birch Creeks, and on the Yukon only above White 
River. None were seen elsewhere. It requires clear water, presumably 
in order to see its prey. : 

Picoides americanus fasciatus. ALASKA THREE-TOED Woop- 
PECKER.— Two seen late in July, in thick spruce forest in the bottom lands 
of Beaver Creek, below the mouth of Fossil Creek. 

Colaptes auratus luteus. NorrHerRN FLickrErR.— Common in the 
Birch Creek flats and locally along the Yukon. 

Chordeiles virginianus virginianus. Nicur Hawxk.— One seen in 
the upper Yukon valley, near the Hootalinqua (Teslin River), August 26. 

Sayornis sayus. Say’s Pamsne.— A somber flycatcher apparently of 
this species was fairly common here and there over the region. A nest 
under the eaves of a road-house near Circle contained newly hatched young 
July 1. Several pairs were found nesting in dolomite crags above timber- 
line in the White Mountains. 

Empidonax trailli alnorum. AtperR FiycarcHer.— A few seen in 
willow thickets along the Yukon in June. 

Otocoris alpestris arcticola. Paturm Hornep LarK.— Frequents the 
drier summits and ridges above timber-line in the mountains around the 
head of Beaver Creek. 

Pica pica hudsonia. Maarrer.— A few were noted on the Yukon 
between Lake Labarge and Stewart River, but none below that. 

Perisoreus canadensis fumifrons. Ataska Jay.— Common every- 
where in the timbered areas. 

Corvus corax principalis. NorraHeRN Raven.— Common wherever 
food was available. Abundant alongthe Yukon and Upper Beaver Creek. 

Euphagus carolinus. Rusty Buacksprrp.— A few small flocks were 
seen in August on the flats of lower Birch Creek. 

Leucosticte tephrocotis. Gray-cROWNED Rosy Fincu.— Abundant 
in July on barren dry slopes of the White Mountains above timber-line. 
None seen elsewhere. 

Acanthis sp. Reppotu.— Both singly and in flocks. A common 
denizen of the mountain valleys, especially near timber-line. 

Calcarius lapponicus alascensis. A LaskA LoNGspur.— Two males 
in faded nuptial plumage were seen on a grassy ridge 4000 ft. above sea- 
level near the White Mountains on July 15. 

Calcarius pictus. Painrep LoNaspur.— Same habitat as the Horned 
Lark. Not common. 


Vol. SSVI] BuackweLpEr, Birds of the Upper Yukon. 63 

Passerculus sandwichensis alaudinus. WrsTerN SAVANNAH SPAR- 
row.— Commonly associated with Pipits on the mountains twenty-five 
miles west of Circle about the middle of July. At this season it is always 
above timber-line. 

Zonotrichia 1. gambelli. Gampert’s Sparrow.— This is the most 
common bird along Yukon canyon and in the mountains west of Circle. 
It became scarce about July 10, and was last seen on August 8. It prob- 
ably migrates early. 

Spizella monticola ochracea. WersterN Tree Sparrow.— Common 
near timber-line in the mountains west of Circle. 

Junco hyemalis hyemalis. Siarn-cotorep JuNnco.— Common in 
the spruce and birch timber everywhere. 

Passerella iliaca(?). Fox Sparrow.— Several were seen in the willow 
thickets in the Birch Creek flats on August 12. 

Petrochelidon lunifrons lunifrons. Curr Swattow.— A_ small 
colony was found nesting on the limestone cliffs on the Yukon River below 
Thanksgiving Creek. None were seen elsewhere. 

Tachycineta thalassina lepida. NorrHeRN VIOLET-GREEN SWwaAt- 
Low.— Abundant along the Yukon and locally in the mountains farther 
west. Normally it nests among the cliffs in chinks in the rocks, but it was 
also seen going in and out of the Bank Swallow’s burrows in the silt 
terraces along the river and was also using old mud nests of the Cliff 
Swallows. It was last seen on August 11. 

Riparia riparia. Bank SwatLtow.— Nests locally in silt banks along 
Yukon canyon. Not abundant. 

Dendreeca #stiva rubiginosa. ALASKA YELLOW WARBLER.— A few 
were seen among the willows along the Yukon in June. 

Dendroica coronata. Myrrie Warsier.— Rather common in the 
spruce woods along Beaver Creek in July and August. Last seen August 14. 

Seiurus noveboracensis notabilis. GrinNeLu’s Water THRUSH.— 
A few were seen along the banks of the creeks in July and August. 

Anthus rubescens. Pirit.— Present everywhere on the mossy 
slopes above timber-line. Seen at Fort Yukon on the Flats August 17. 

Penthestes hudsonicus hudsonicus. Hupsontan CHICKADEE.— 
Common in spruce forest near the White Mountains in July and in the 
Yukon Flats in August. 

Regulus calendula calendula. Rusy-crowNep KINGLET. Common 
in spruce forest around White Mountains in July. Last seen August 12. 

Hylocichla aliciz aliciz (?). GRAY-cHEEKED THRusH.— A thrush with 
the peculiar wiry buzzing note of the Veery was heard rather frequently 
along the flood plains of the Yukon River and Birch Creek, from June 10 
to August 15. 

Hylocichla ustulata swainsoni. OLive-BAcKED ‘THRUSH.— Very 
common along the Yukon in June, but much less so in the mountains in 
July. Last heard August 9. 

Planesticus migratorius migratorius. Ropin.— Rather scarce but 


64 Monro, Birds of the Okanagan Valley. ae 


Jan. 


locally common, as in mountains between Miller House and the White 
Mountains. It became scarcer about July 20, and was seen last on August 14. 

Ixoreus nevius meruloides. NorrHeRN VARIED THrusu.— A few 
were found nesting in the thick spruce forest along Fossil Creek in July 
at 2000 ft. elevation. 

Saxicola enanthe cnanthe. WueatTrar.— The bird has the same 
habitat as the Pipit and, like it, flits from rock to rock on the mossy slopes 
above timber-line. Young just learning to fly, July 15. Not seen in 


flocks, 


NOTES ON SOME BIRDS OF THE OKANAGAN VALLEY, 
BRITISH COLUMBIA. 


BY J. A. MUNRO. 


ZEchmophorus occidentalis. WrsterN Grese.— Migrant and scarce 
winter resident; April 23, 1911, is the earliest spring record. In the spring 
of 1914 they were very plentiful. May 12 was a warm still day, without 
a breath of wind or a ripple on the surface of the lake; from the shore 
near Okanogan Landing, one can see down the lake for five miles, to where 
a rocky point interrupts the view. Small bands of Western Grebe were 
scattered everywhere, the sun glittering on their white under-parts. I 
estimated that there were eight hundred, on this small portion of the lake. 
In the fall, they are less common and more regular in their appearance. 
The earliest record of arrival is September 5, and the latest, September 28. 

Colymbus holbelli. Horsa@ir’s Grese.— Abundant summer resi- 
dent: a few winter on Okanagan Lake. During April, flocks of these birds _ 
congregate on Okanagan Lake, keeping well out from the shore, and engage 
in a noisy courtship, attended by much splashing and diving. For several 
weeks, their yelping call can be heard day and night. They breed in 
suitable places on all the marshy lakes of this district; frequently nests 
are found within thirty feet of each other, but I have never found them 
breeding in colonies. On May 15 and June 8, 1916, ten nests were found 
in the tules, fringing an alkaline lake. In every case there was a Coot’s 
nest within a few yards. 

Larus argentatus. Hrrrina Gutt.— A common winter resident on 
Okanagan Lake; they make daily trips the length of the lake, following 
the steamer. Unlike the Herring Gulls of the Great Lakes or the sea- 
coast, these birds are quite wary; it is generally impossible to get within 
gunshot range. Several times I have watched them following a flock of 


Vale a da Munro, Birds of the Okanagan Valley. 65 


feeding Loons, swimming beside them and when left behind by the faster 
moving Loons, rising from the water and flying to the centre of the flock 
again. It seems hardly possible that they would be able to steal fish from 
such a strong, active bird as the Loon. ; 

Larus philadelphia. Bonapartn’s Gutt.— Common migrant, much 
more numerous in the spring, when they arrive in a body and remain only 
two or three days. Stragglers during the spring migration are unusual. 
In 1912, 1913 and 1914, they arrived at Okanagan Landing on May 4; 
in 1915 on May 5, and in 1916, twenty appeared on April 29, and the large 
flock arrived again on May 4. May 12 is the latest spring record. The 
fall migration is more irregular; juvenals arriving about the middle of 
August and adults a little later. They are seen until the middle of Septem- 
ber, September 20 being the latest record. There are occasional strag- 
glers in the summer; an adult in breeding dress and two juvenals being 
noted on July 20, 1915, and on July 22, 1917, an adult in breeding dress 
was collected. 

Usually they are quite fearless; and on a still spring day I paddled into 
a flock of about one hundred, on Okanagan Lake. They rode buoyantly 
on the surface, wing-tips and tail touching, and held high above the body. 
Their method of feeding suggested the Northern Phalarope, swimming 
in a jerky fashion from side to side and picking minute objects off the 
water. Their voices were soft and resonant, like a note struck with the 
fingers, on the muted string of a violin. 

Grus mexicana. Sanpsint Crane.— Common migrant, occasion- 
ally breeds. The large flocks seldom stop in the spring but sometimes do 
so in the fall. October 4, 1917 was a violently windy day and a large 
number of Cranes both G. mexicana and canadensis were forced to alight 
on some open range-land near Okanagan Landing, where they remained 
until shot at. 

In the evening of May 20, 1915, a flock of fifty-seven flew north over 
Okanagan Lake. They moved for a time in a compact flock, and then 
strung out in single file. Sometimes they flew in the form of the letter U, 
a half circle, and again the flock took the form of the letter S. 

Dendragopus obscurus richardsoni. RicHarpson’s GROUSE.— 
Abundant resident in normal years. Their numbers were greatly reduced 
during the past two years, by cold, wet springs and the ravages of an 
intestinal parasite. 

The Blue Grouse begin to mate about the end of March, when the snow 
has melted from the lower hills. The males are then quite fearless and one 
can walk to within afew feet of the hooting birds. While calling, the body 
is flattened and held close to the ground, the wings are dropped, the head 
is sunk between the shoulders and the widely spread tail is held at right 
angles to the body. When they are in this position the fan-like tail en- 
tirely conceals the body from one standing behind the bird. The feathers 
on the neck are folded back, showing the white underparts in vivid contrast 
to the naked, orange-red, palpitating skin of the air-sacs. The sacs can 


66 Munro, Birds of the Okanagan Valley. [a 


be seen to rise and fall as the bird draws in air and then slowly lets it out. 
The combs are brilliant yellow and much swollen. While inflating the 
air-sacs the bill is held wide open. The mating call might be rendered as, 
whoo, ‘ wHOO whoo-00, whoo wHoo, whoo.” Unlike the Blue Grouse 
of the coast region, this call is soft and has no great carrying power. There 
is also a single note, ‘“‘ hoop,” that can be heard for a great distance. I have 
never been able to discover if it is the male or the female that uses the 
single hoot. After calling, the male may strut a few yards, in the same 
attitude as described, and with breast almost touching the ground. They 
then look more like a mammal thana bird. While mating, the males are 
utterly indifferent to danger and many are killed by coyotes and goshawks. 

The eggs are laid early in May. The nests are usually shallow depressions 
in the ground, lined with pine-needles and a few feathers; some have little 
or no lining. A favorite site for the nest is on a bunch-grass bench, on a 
steep mountain side, close to pine or fir trees. Sometimes they build on 
the loose sand under a pine tree. One nest found on May 13, 1915, and 
containing nine partly incubated eggs, was under the “A” of a rail fence 
close to a wagon road, through open woods of yellow pine. The following 
year I found a nest with ten eggs, under the same fence, close to where the 
first one had been located. 

May 31 is the earliest record for newly hatched young. There is con- 
siderable mortality in the young birds and several weeks after hatching 
the coveys have generally dwindled to six or eight. They grow fast and 
when the size of Meadowlarks will fly as straight and true as a Quail. 
When a covey of young is flushed the female will not rise until the young 
have alighted in the nearby trees. When in the trees they assume the 
characteristic attitude of the adult, standing parallel to the branch, with 
tail slightly raised. 

The young are full grown by August 15. They leave the timbered 
country shortly before this to feed on grasshoppers along the margins of 
wooded draws and coulees, on the open range. During the middle of the 
day they can be seen, sunning themselves on some rock in a prominent 
place where they can watch for enemies. They are quite tame at this 
season and as one approaches a feeding covey, they will stiffen and remain 
in rigid postures until one is within a few yards, and then rise and fly into 
the nearest tree. 

‘About September 1, the coveys begin to ‘‘ pack”? and are then found 
principally in the stands of yellow pine (Pinus ponderosa). They are 
then feeding chiefly on the large oily seeds of this tree, picking them off 
the ground underneath the trees. They still eat many grasshoppers, 
catching them in the open places, early in the morning while the insects 
are sluggish. When the supply of fallen pine seeds is exhausted, they eat 
rose hips, snowberries and red and black haws. 

About the middle of October, the packs go into the thick stands of 
Douglas fir and remain there until the spring, eating fir needles exclusively. 
Their flesh becomes impregnated with the flavor of fir and is quite uneatable. 


eT) Munro, Birds of the Okanagan Valley. 67 


If not disturbed too much they will remain in the same clump of trees all 
winter, not coming to the ground for days at a time. They sit very close 
and often will not leave the trees until one throws stones or branches at 
them. The ground under one of these roosting trees, in the spring, re- 
sembles a poultry yard with accumulation of droppings. 

During October, Blue Grouse become quite wild. When flushed they 

-invariably fly down hill and alight in thickly foliaged firs or pines. Until 
one knows what. to look for, they are very hard to find in these trees. 
They stand parallel with the branch, perfectly rigid, neck stretched, tail 
closed and slightly elevated —a strained and most ungraceful pose. 

They are fond of sitting on rocky ledges or slide rock, on sunny days, 
and match the color of the rocks so perfectly that one seldom sees them 
until they flush. A Blue Grouse thundering down a steep mountain-side, 
through heavy timber, affords the most difficult sporting shot of any 
Canadian Grouse. 

Circus hudsonius. Marsno Hawkx.— Common summer resident; a 
few remain through the winter. Two nests were found in the tules on the 
shore of Swan Lake. 

May 15, 1916. Five eggs, incubation advanced. Nest in a clearing 
in the tules, about four feet square, that had been trampled down by the 
bird; composed of a pile of grass and weed stalks on a foundation of sticks, 
that raised the nest above the wet ground. The grass was placed all the 
same way, a shallow depression at one end held the eggs. 

May 18, 1916. Three fresh eggs, one a third larger than the others, 
nest similar to number one, but slightly smaller. 

Several times I have seen a Marsh Hawk strike at a Sandpiper. A 
female shot in September, 1912, had the remains of two Solitary Sandpipers 
in her stomach. On a foggy September morning, I once saw a Marsh 
Hawk dash into a flock of Green-winged Teal and try, unsuccessfully; to 
lift one from the water. 

Buteo borealis calurus. Western Rep-rarw.— This is the charac- 
teristic hawk of the lower mountains. They are equally at home in the 
dense coniferous forests at the edge of cultivated land, in the open park 
country of the yellow pine (Pinus ponderosa) or in the midst of deep: 
canyons and rock cliffs. 

The Red-tail arrives in the Okanagan early in May and leaves in October.. 
I have no winter records. Various small mammals, such as ground squir-- 
rels (Citellus), pine-squirrels (Sciwrus), and pikas (Ochotona), afford an 
ample food supply and one would expect Buteos and raptores generally, 
to breed here in large numbers; but such is not the case. Red-tails are 
probably the most common of the larger hawks (except during the periodic 
invasions of Swainson’s Buzzards in big grasshopper years) but they are 
not abundant, and one does not see the large migrations that are a feature 
of the coast-belt of British Columbia. 

The same nests are used for several years, usually built in tall coniferous 
trees, forty to sixty feet above the ground. A site commanding a view of 
open range or valley is preferred. The following nests are typical. 


68 Munro, Birds of the Okanagan Valley. Auk 


May 22, 1917. A large, bulky nest of sticks lined with black tree-moss 
(Alectoria jubata) and some down from the birds’ breasts; forty feet from 
the ground in a tall Douglas fir, free of branches for the first twenty-five 
feet. This was in open woods of Douglas fir and yellow pine, overlooking a 
small creek and a wide area of hay land. The three partly incubated eggs 
were chalky-white, sparingly blotched with pale brown. Both _ birds 
alighted in nearby trees and did not fly over the nest or make any hostile 
swoops at the collector. 

May 28, 1917. Nest twenty-two inches in diameter, made of spruce 
sticks and lined with spruce twigs and pale green tree-moss or lichen 
(Evernia vulpina). This was at the top of a spruce, broken off, sixty feet 
from the ground. The rather heavy spruce sticks composing it rested on 
the broken portion of the tree and on the thick limbs directly below. The 
spruce was a solitary one, at the edge of a cottonwood forest, bordering a 
stream and pasture land, in a deep, narrow valley. There were two eggs, 
in an advanced stage of incubation; one was nearly pure white and the 
other faintly blotched with light brown. The male had been shot two 
weeks before. While the tree was being climbed, the female sat in a cot- 
tonwood forty yards away and screamed repeatedly but did not come 
any closer to the nest. 

The following notes refer to a pair of Red-tails that had their eyrie on 
the face of a sheer cliff, three hundred feet high. As well as I could see 
with binoculars, the nest was made entirely of sticks and was built, none 
too securely, on a small ledge, fifty feet from the top of the cliff. This 
cliff formed one side of a deep canyon, along the base of a steep, rugged 
mountain. Both sides of the canyon, below the cliffs, were piled high 
with slide-rock, the home of hundreds of Pikas (Ochotona). The top of 
the lowest side of the canyon was fringed with tall Douglas fir and Murray 
pine. On the other side, back of the three-hundred-foot cliff containing 
the eyrie, the mountain rose, almost sheer, for another six hundred feet. 

June 8, 1915. On this date, when the eyrie was first discovered, there 
were two or three young, just emerging from the down — their heads could 
be seen above the rim of the nest. The female was kept under observation 
for several hours and did not fly to the nest. The male was heard in the 
distance but did not come into the canyon. The female was greatly ex- 
cited, flying in short circles over my head and screaming constantly. She 
frequently alighted on the top of a dead, stunted fir, in the canyon, below 
the eyrie. A pair of Western Robins attacked her several times and 
drove her from the tree. 

May 27, 1916. I was unable to visit the eyrie again until the following 
year. On May 27, there were two downy young. The old birds were 
more hostile than in the previous year. When I first entered the canyon, 
the male was flying about the face of the cliff, screaming fiercely, a long- 
drawn-out hissing scream, like the escape of exhaust steam from a locomo- 
tive. As I scrambled over the talus at the foot of the cliff, he swooped at 
me several times from a great height, slanting down at tremendous speed 


pox Nr] Monro, Birds of the Okanagan Valley. 69 


on set wings, with a loud tearing noise; when close over my head, he would 
stop short, and then mount straight into the air, head first, in a “ climbing ”’ 
position. After rising in this fashion for twenty or thirty feet, he would 
assume a normal position and mount in a succession of spirals. The 
female appeared with a large snake twisting in her claws and flew straight 
to the nest, not having seen me. After a few minutes spent in the nest, 
she joined the male and they both flew into one of the firs on the top of the 
canyon. It was impossible to see what disposition she made of the snake. 

Shortly after this, one of the young raised itself above the rim of the 
nest and after flapping its naked wings several times, raised itself over the 
nest rim and ejected a stream of excreta down the face of the cliff. 

No refuse, which would have told of their food habits, was found below 
the nest, but it is probable that Pikas formed a large portion of their diet. 

July 31, 1916. The two young were seen, soaring over the canyon. 

Buteo swainsoni. Swarnson’s Hawk.— Regular summer resident, 
arriving about the middle of April and leaving in August; the latest record 
is September 6, I have no winter records. 

During the summers of 1913, 1914 and 1915, there was a serious local 
irruption of large crickets and grasshoppers. These were found in countless 
hordes on the open range, overlooking the city of Vernon, and ate every 
green thing on the hills. In the summer of 1915, I noticed that they were 
attacked by a reddish colored parasite that clustered on the head and 
thorax. This must have killed great numbers, as they were not so plentiful 
the following two years. During July and August when grasshoppers were 
most abundant, the Swainson’s Buzzards gathered in unusual numbers, 
for this country, and fed exclusively on these insects. Juveniles were in 
the majority but there was a sprinkling of adults, some of them in the dark 
phase. 

Three juveniles collected on July 15, 1915, were in the spotted plumage 
and were moulting the secondary feathers on the wings. Adults collected 
were in various stages of moult. Their stomachs were distended with 
crickets and grasshoppers. These insects, when they are available, seem 
to be preferred to any other food. Their abundance and the ease with 
which they are captured, is suitable to the rather sluggish temperament of 
this Buteo. They occasionally take birds, as Major Allan Brooks found 
seven downy Ruffed Grouse in the crop of a breeding female; but I think 
they catch fewer small mammals than does the Red-tail. 

On July 16, 1914, I saw a flock of forty in all plumages, on the open 
range. Some were wheeling and circling close to the ground, others were 
standing, gorged, on fence posts, in the grass, and on the face of a small 
butte. 

While hunting, they are often persecuted by Kingbirds, both Tyrannus 
tyrannus and verticalis. In trying to escape from their tormentors, they 
sometimes turn completely over, sideways, in a ‘‘ loop the loop”? move- 
ment. I once saw two Swainson’s Buzzards fly towards each other, fasten 
their claws together and drop several yards, rolling over and over. 


Fess 


70 Monro, Birds of the Okanagan Valley. 

Asio wilsonianus. LoNnc-kareD Own.— On April 19, 1917, I found a 
female occupying a new crows’ nest and sitting on one egg. Broken crow’s 
eggs on the ground below the nest indicated that she had evicted the 
original owners. On April 30, the crows were again in possession and the 
nest contained four crow’s eggs. The owl then laid four eggs in an old 
crow’s nest, fifty yards from the first one. These eggs were collected on 
May 8, and the owl moved to a third crow’s nest in the same patch of 
brush. On June 23, the nest contained two half-grown young. 

Glaucidium gnoma gnoma. Pyamy Ow. Common resident. 
This is the easiest of the owls to call. They will come readily at any time 
of the day, and from long distances to an imitation of their call. They 
approach the caller with short flights, from one tree-top, to another slightly 
nearer. When in a tree directly over the caller’s head, a further call will 
bring them down to the lower branches, often within a few yards. Often 
two or more will come from different directions. On Vancouver Island I 
once called up four at one time. They are usually followed by an excited 
crowd of Chickadees, Nuthatzhes and other small birds, that keep darting 
at the owl as long as it is in the open. When answering the call, they 
usually sit in a conspicuous position, at the top of a tree or on a dead 
branch. The Pygmy Owl must be one of the greatest enemies of small 
birds, as an imitation of its call will excite every bird in the neighbor- 
hood, while they pay little attention to the call of a “ Scops”’ owl or a 
Saw-whet. 

The only nest I have found was in an old woodpecker’s hole, thirty-five 
feet above the ground in a western larch. There were seven downy young 
in this nest. This was in a thick forest of Murray pine, Douglas fir, and 
western larch, where they are more plentiful than in the yellow pine 
stands at lower altitudes. 

Picoides americanus fasciatus. Avaska THREE-TOED Woop- 
PECKER.— This species is resident and fairly common in Murray pine, 
Western larch, and spruce forests. I have never found them in yellow 
pine or Douglas fir country. They prefer the burnt areas of timber, and 
specimens collected are generally stained with charcoal on the under-parts. 
During the nesting season the males call with a rippling tattoo from the very 
top of the tallest dead tree, near the nesting tree. This calling is usually 
done in the early morning. On May 28, 1917, I found a nest that had just 
been finished, thirty feet from the ground in a dead Murray pine. The 
entrance was smaller than would be expected, slightly over one and a half 
inches, and the hole about fourteen inches deep. No eggs had been laid 
and as I had to leave the locality that day I was unable to revisit the nest. 
A half grown male collected on June 17, 1916, showed a few scattered 
vellow feathers on the crown. 

Stellula calliope. Canitiorpe Hummincsirp.— This hummer fre- 
quently nests in the same tree for several years in succession. A dead 
lichen covered branch of maple or birch is often chosen. The nests straddle 
the branch, and I have never seen one that was pensile. The two nests 
described were probably lower down than is usual. 


co | Monro, Birds of the Okanagan Valley. val 


June 6, 1911. Two eggs, incubation started. Nest twenty feet from 
the ground on a drooping branch of a dead maple, in a birch and maple 
draw in the mountains. Outside of nest composed of lichen and small 
shreds of moss, presenting a ragged appearance from below. The lining 
was of felted cottonwood down. This nest was discovered through the 
angry, excited actions of the female. She buzzed around my head, as 
I approached the tree, and would not leave the vicinity of the nest. 

June 30, 1916. Found female sitting on two partly incubated eggs. 
Nest of lichen and plant down, and lined with plant down; saddled on a 
small dead twig of a Douglas fir, on the outside of the tree, seven feet above 
the ground. A few inches above the nest was a thick spray of live fir, 
effectually shielding the sitting bird from the hot sun. This was on a 
steep, rocky mountain side among thick timber. 

A birch and maple draw is the favorite home of Stellula calliope, and one 
can often see six or eight, buzzing around a birch tree, which a Red-naped 
Sapsucker has girdled. 

Tyrannus verticalis. WeresterN Kinepirp.— Common summer resi- 
dent. The earliest record during seven years is April 25, 1911, and the 
latest May 13, 1912. Their departure in the fall is more uniform; August 
17, 1911, being the earliest and August 27 the latest. In five other years, 
there was a difference of only three days in their departure, August 20 
being an average date. 

They nest in most curious places. For two seasons, a pair built in the 
eaves-trough of my house, directly over the vent. Both years the eggs 
were destroyed by rain storms and washed into the rain barrel. A window 
ledge is a favorite nesting site. The residents along some of the country 
roads nail ap small soap or starch boxes on their gate-posts for the reeep- 
tion of milk bottles, etc.; these are frequently used as nesting sites. [ 
have known them to build on a ledge above the kitchen door of a farm 
house, which was opened and shut fifty times during the day. Frequently 
they use abandoned Flicker holes, or the roughened, decayed top of a fence 
post. 

The nests are well made of roots. weed-stalks, string, ete., lined with 
plant down and horsehair or sheep’s wool when it can be found. Four is 
the usual number of eggs laid. . 

Sayornis sayi. Say’s Puase.— Summer resident, much more com- 
mon the past three years. A nest containing young, found on May 20, 
1916, was built largely of dry, lace-like Polamogeton, that had been washed 
up on the beach and bleached white by the sun. The nest was inside a 
vacant tent, on a wooden cross-support, near the door. 

Myiochanes richardsoni richardsoni. Western Woop Prwes.— 
Common summer resident; the earliest record is May 9, 1916, and the 
latest departure September 13, 1915. They breed commonly along road- 
sides, preferably in aspens (Populus tremuloides). They are late in breed- 
ing. The earliest record for a full complement of eggs is June 22, 1916. 
The nests are usually rather flimsy, made of plant fibres, fine weed stalks, 
cobwebs and perhaps a few pieces of lichen. They are usually built 


a2 Monro, Birds of the Okanagan Valley. [poe 


Jan. 


saddle fashion on a rather large limb, generally at a crotch, but I have 
found two that were built in upright forks like a Yellow Warbler’s nest. 
These two nests were in half-dead peach trees in an orchard. 

On June 20, 1911, a nest with four eggs was found in black cottonwood 
(Populus trichocarpa) on the lake shore. The eggs were eaten and the nest 
partly destroyed, probably by a White-footed Mouse. They built another 
nest in the same tree, and, on July 4, I collected the nest and three eggs. 
While climbing the tree, the female flew past my face several times, snapping 
her mandibles. This pair then built a third time in a poplar a few yards 
from the cottonwood and the nest was completed in three days. I was 
unable to follow the vicissitudes of this family any further. 

Pica pica hudsonia. Maacrre.— Abundant resident in the river 
bottoms and on the yellow-pine benches but are less common in the forests. 
Little good can be said of these birds; they are probably the worst egg 
thieves of all the Corvide. If one leaves any game cached in the woods 
they are sure to find it and eat the greater portion. In trapping small 
mammals in a Magpie country one must go over the trap line frequently 
or many specimens will be eaten. I received a reliable report of a small 
band of Magpies that had picked large holes in the backs of several young 
shoats. Their habit of raising a hue and ery, after any owl that makes its 
appearance, is sometimes of great use to the collector. As they raise large 
broods, laying six to eight eggs, and have few natural enemies they are 
increasing rapidly. 

Except in the nesting season, they are exceedingly wary and well able to 
look after themselves. Frequently they are caught in traps set for mink 
and very often in coyote traps, set near a carcass. They are easily taken 
by poisoned baits. 

In the spring, they have the Cowbird habit of walking over range horses’ 
backs and picking off the fat wood-ticks. 

They usually nest in colonies, in patches of nearly impenetrable Black 
Haw (Crataegus douglasi) or in brushy coulees, on open hillsides. The 
following nest can be taken as typical. 

May 14, 1915. Seven fresh eggs; nest of mud and sticks lined with 
grass and fine roots, eight feet from the ground and near the top of a Black 
Haw. ‘The outer covering of the nest, about three and one half feet in 
height, made of thorny Black Haw branches, with an entrance at each 
side, six inches above the nest proper. 

The birds return to the same locality every year and repair the old nests, 
if they are not too dilapidated. April 22 is the earliest record for a full 
set of eggs. 

When the young are nearly full grown, they gather in large flocks on the 
bare hillsides and feed on grasshoppers and crickets. This of course is 
in their favor but cannot balance their evil deeds. 

Nucifraga columbiana. CuiarK’s Nutcracker.—Resident; their 
abundance depending on the seed crop of the Yellow Pine (Pinus pon- 
derosa). Like all corvine birds, they are exceedingly curious and a passing 
deer or coyote will attract their attention so that the position of game can 


aad Munro, Birds of the Okanagan Valley. 73 


often be located by their excited cries. They come readily to an imitation 
of the call of the Pygmy Owl or the Horned Owl and will investigate the 
ealler at close range. 

Their food is largely the seed of the Yellow Pine during the fall and winter 
but they are omnivorous at other seasons. I once saw a single bird feed- 
ing on the carcass of a Bushy-tailed Wood Rat (Neotoma columbiana), 
Mr. C. De B. Green tells me they have the corvine habit of eating birds’ 
eggs. Several nests of Hermit Thrushes, Horned Larks and Pipits, that 
were under observation, above timber line on Apex Mountain, were 
destroyed by a pair of Clarke’s Nutcrackers. 

Three nests were found on March 9, 1912, by Major Allan Brooks, 
assisted by the writer. This was in Yellow Pine country; a series of 
wooded benches overlooking Okanagan Lake. There was some snow on 
the ground, the days were warm, with bright sunshine and the nights 
were frosty. 

Number one. Nest loose and bulky, of rotten wood and desiecated 
pine grass on a platform of stout pine twigs; fifty feet from the ground 
and eight feet from the trunk, in a Yellow Pine. The female was sitting 
on two fresh eggs. 

Number two. Nest of the same materials as number one. Forty feet 
above the ground in a Yellow Pine. Female sitting on two fresh eggs. 

Number three. Twenty-five feet from the ground and twelve feet from 
the trunk of a Douglas Fir. This nest was found by watching one of the 
birds gathering sheep’s wool that had caught on a barbed wire fence, and 
carrying it to the nest. The three partly incubated eggs were collected 
ten days later. The young are faintly spotted with white on the under- 
parts. 

Pipilo maculatus montanus. SpurrepD TOwHEE.— Common sum- 
mer resident. I have a report from a reliable observer, of a single bird, 
wintering at Sunnywold, fifteen miles south of Okanagan Landing; and a 
bird seen here on February 17, 1917, had probably been in the vicinity all 
winter. March 20 is the average date of their arrival and October 10 
of their departure. They raise two and possibly three broods; the earliest 
date for a full set of eggs is May 3, 1916. A nest found on July 22, 1913, 
containing newly hatched young was possibly a third brood. 

Juveniles in various stages of moult swarm in all the patches of brush, 
along the lower hills from the last of May until September. The irides 
of the young are first bluish, practically without color, then hazel and later 
dull orange. 

The alarm note of the adults is similar to the Catbird’s “ meow.” 

The situation and material of the following nest is typical. 

May 19, 1917. Four eggs; incubation started; nest on the ground 
near shore of lake and thicket of hawthorns; made of the inner bark of 
cottonwood, wild sunflower and other weed stalks and lined with dry grass. 

Myadestes townsendi. TowNsEND’s SOLITAIRE.— Common resident 
nesting on the ledges and crevices of rock bluffs. On June 11, 1917, while 
motoring along a narrow road above the Tulameen River, past a rock 


74 OBERHOLSER, Subspecies of Piranga hepatica. aa 
cutting, a Solitaire flew off her nest and passed in front of the car. Her 
nest was in a small crevice in the rock cutting, five feet above the road, 
and-would have been on the level of a man’s eye, walking along the ground. 
The nest was built of dry grass, twigs, fine roots and moss, lined with fine 
grass and contained four partly incubated eggs. 

The young are slim handsome birds conspicuously spotted with silvery 
buff on the lower parts, head and back. 

The alarm note is similar to the ‘‘ chuck chuck ”’ of the Hermit Thrush. 
In a recent number of the Condor,! ‘Mr. Forrest 8. Hanford states, that 
during thirteen years, he has heard the Solitaire sing only five times. 
In this district, they sing quite freely, during the nesting season; generally 
perched on the very top of a Douglas fir or Murray pine. I have frequently 
heard them singing in the winter. 

In the winter months their food is largely the acrid berries of the dwarf 
juniper (Juniperus occidentalis). 


DESCRIPTION OF A NEW SUBSPECIES OF PIRANGA 
HEPATICA SWAINSON. 


BY HARRY C. OBERHOLSER. 


THE geographic range of Piranga hepatica hepatica, as now under- 
stood, extends from Arizona to southern Mexico. Examination 
of a series of 115 specimens of this species in the United States 
National Museum, including the Biological Survey collection, 
reveals the existence of an additional and undescribed subspecies 
from the southwestern United States. This we venture to name 


Piranga hepatica oreophasma, subsp. nov. 


Chars. subsp.— In general, similar to Piranga hepatica hepatica, from 
central and southern Mexico, but larger, with a relatively somewhat smaller 
bill; male with upper-parts darker, the back also more reddish, and 
ventral surface more deeply colored; female with upper and lower parts 
rather darker, the back averaging also somewhat more grayish (less green- 
ish). 


1Vol. XIX. January-February, 1917, page 13. 


Vol. OXXVE]  OpurHoiser, Subspecies of Piranga hepatica. 5) 


Description.— Type, adult male, No. 168397, U. S. Nat. Mus.; Pine 
Canyon, at 6000 ft. altitude, Chisos Mountains, central western Texas, 
June 3, 1901; Harry C. Oberholser; original number, 290. Forehead and 
anterior portion of crown, dark scarlet; occiput rather light Brazil red; 
cervix light brick red; back and scapulars, between ochre red and brick 
red, somewhat mixed with neutral gray; rump neutral gray washed with 
the reddish of back; upper tail-coverts light brick red; tail Natal brown, 
the rectrices edged externally with dragon’s-blood red; wings fuscous, the 
superior coverts rather paler, the primaries, secondaries, median and lesser 
coverts, edged with dragon’s-blood red, the greater coverts and outer 
webs of the tertials, with dull coral red or dull light coral red; supraloral 
streak scarlet; lores and mastax brownish gray, a little mixed with buffy 
white; suborbital region grayish white somewhat mingled with grayish; 
auriculars dull neutral gray, washed with light Brazil red; a broad stripe 
down the sides of the neck back of the auriculars, of the same color as the 
cervix; a broad stripe behind this, like the back; extreme anterior point 
of chin creamy white; sides and flanks between dragon’s-blood red and 
scarlet; thighs dragon’s-blood red; remainder of under parts scarlet, paling 
on the anal region and lower tail-coverts to peach red (a patch of primuline 
yellow on the middle of the abdomen is doubtless adventitious); edge of 
wing light scarlet; lining of wing dark shrimp pink. 

Measurements.— Male:! wing, 103-106 (average, 104.5) mm.; tail, 
81.5-86.5 (84.6); exposed culmen, 16—17.8 (17.1); tarsus, 21-23 (22.1); 
middle toe without claw, 15—-16.5 (16.). 

Female: wing, 98-101 (average, 99.3) mm.; tail, 79.5-84.5 (82.7); 
exposed culmen, 16.2-19 (17.5); tarsus, 21.5-23.3 (22.3); middle toe 
without claw, 14.5-16 (15.4). 

Geographic distribution.— Southwestern United States to central Mexico. 
Breeds in the Transition Zone of the mountains, north to north central 
New Mexico and Beaverdam, northwestern Arizona; west to western 
Arizona, Sonora, Sinaloa, and Tepic; south to central western Jalisco; 
east to western Jalisco and southeastern Coahuila, Santa Catarina in 
central western Nuevo Leon, central western Texas, and east central New 
Mexico. Winters north to southern Sonora, and south to Michoacan and 
the State of Mexico. 


Remarks.— The race of Piranga hepatica here newly distin- 
guished is not so dark above or below as Piranga hepatica dextra * 
from eastern Mexico, and, furthermore, is considerably larger; 
while the female is lighter and less greenish above. Specimens 
from Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona are largest; those from 


1 Five specimens, from Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona. 
2 Five specimens, from Texas and Arizona. 
3 Bangs, Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash., XX, March 27, 1907, p. 30. 


(yaa 


76 OBERHOLSER, Subspecies of Piranga hepatica. vant 


Batopilas, Chihuahua, and Alamos, Sonora, are slightly smaller, 
though in color not different. Birds from the Sierra Guadalupe 
in Coahuila are of the same size as those from Arizona, but are. 
somewhat darker, thus indicating their vergence toward Piranga 
hepatica dextra. A single adult male from Santa Catarina, Nuevo 
Leon, although not very far east of the Cerro de la Silla, where 
Piranga hepatica dextra occurs, is of the same color as the Arizona 
form, but is of rather smaller size, inclining, as would be expected, 
toward Piranga hepatica dextra, although apparently, so far as it 
is possible to judge from a single example, nearer Piranga hepatica 
oreophasma. Examples from Atenguillo and San _ Sebastian, 
Jalisco, together with those from Santa Teresa, Tepic, are just 
about half way between the present race and Piranga hepatica 
hepatica, the males being perfectly intermediate in size, though in 
color like Arizona birds; while the female is of the size of Piranga 
hepatica hepatica, but in color nearer the Arizona race. As a whole, 
however, these birds are probably best referable to Piranga hepatica 
oreophasma. 

The Hepatic Tanager was originally described ' from a specimen 
taken at Real del Monte, Hidalgo, Mexico; and, therefore, the 
birds from central and southern Mexico must be regarded as 
typical. Mr. Outram Bangs has already described? the small, dark 
form from eastern Mexico as Piranga hepatica dextra; but in so. 
doing, made the statement, through a misunderstanding, on the 
ostensible authority of Mr. E. W. Nelson, that Real del Monte, 
the type locality of Piranga hepatica hepatica, was the same as 
Temascaltepec, likewise one of Swainson’s localities. This, of 
course, is not the case, since Real del Monte is in southern Hidalgo, 
not far northeast of the city of Pachuca; while Temascaltepec 1s 
situated at some distance southwest of the city of Mexico, and in 
the state of Mexico. 

There are thus apparently three recognizable subspecies of 
Piranga hepatica. The range of the new one here described has 
been given above, but since the distribution of the others has been 
altered by the present separation, their ranges with the necessary 
corrections are added below. 


1 Piranga hepatica Swainson, Philos. Mag., new series, I, No. 6, June, 1827, p. 438 (Real 
del Monte, Hidalgo, Mexico). 
2 Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash., XX, March 27, 1907, p. 30. 


CS aad OBERHOLSER, Subspecies of Piranga hepatica. He 


Piranga hepatica hepatica Central and southern Mexico, 
north to San Luis Potosi; west to central Jalisco (Guadalajara) 
and western Michoacan; south to Guerrero and Oaxaca; and east 
to Oaxaca, Tlaxcala, and Hidalgo. 

Piranga hepatica dextra.— Eastern Mexico, north to Cerro de la 
Silla in Nuevo Leon; west to the same locality, Huauchinango in 
northwestern Puebla, southeastern Puebla, and the eastern border 
of Oaxaca; south to Chiapas and Guatemala; and east to Guate- 
mala, Chiapas, and Vera Cruz. 

The localities from which specimens of Piranga hepatica oreo- 
phasma have been examined are listed below: 

Arizona.— Hualapai Mountains, 6300 feet (July 8, 1902); 
Fort Whipple, (June 21, 1892 [nestling]); Fort Huachuca (May 7 
and 11, 1892); 25 miles northeast of Rice, Nantan Plateau (May 11 
and 12, 1916); Young’s Ranch, Mingus Mountain, at 7500 feet, 
6 miles southeast of Jerome (August 21, 1916); Ash Creek, Graham 
Mountains, 6100 feet (May 16, 1914); Graham Mountains, 6400 
feet (May 13, 1914); Dragoon Mountains (May 4, 1895); Flag- 
staff (May 27, 1888; June 21, 1886); Mud Tanks (October 3, 
1884); Rock Canyon (July 12 and 20, 1874); San Francisco 
Mountain (September 4 and 7, 1889; August 31, 1889; June 3, 
1887); 20 miles south of Apache (September 8, 1873); Crittenden 
(August 26 and 27, 1874); Fort Verde (August 5, 1887); Huachuca 
Mountains (July 27, 1893; August 2, 1893; September 10 and 16, 
1893); Gardner’s River, Santa Rita Mountains (June 18, 1884); 
Santa Rita Mountains (June 7, 10, and 28, 1884; July 5, 1884). 

New Mezxico— Animas Peak, Animas Mountains, 8000 feet 
(August 3, 1908); southeast slope of Capitan Mountains (July 22, 
1903) Burro Mountains (September 16, 1908); east side of San 
Luis Mountains (June 23, 24, and 26, 1892); west side of San Luis 
Mountains (July 13, 1892); San Luis Mountains (September 4, 
1893); Big Hatchet Mountains (May 19 and 21, 1892); Dog 
Spring, Grant Co. (May 31, 1892); Grafton; Zuni Mountains 
(August 31, 1857). 

Texas.— Pine Canyon, 6000 feet, Chisos Mountains (June 3, 
1901) [type]; June 7, 1901); Limpia Canyon, Davis Mountains 
(July 12, 1901). 

Chihuahua.— San Luis Mountains (August 12, 1908); near 
Batopilas (October 4, 1898). 


Auk 


78 OBERHOLSER, Subspecies of Piranga hepatica. var 


Coahuila.— Sierra Guadalupe (April 24, 25, and 27, 1902). 

Jalisco.— Atenguillo (March 5, 1897); Ocotlan (January 4, 
1903); San Sebastian (March 21 and 22, 1897). 

Mexico.— Amecameca (February 18, 1893). 

Michoacan.— Mt. Tancitaro (February 24, 1903). 

Nuevo Leon.— Santa Catarina (April 13, 1902). 

Sinaloa.— Culiacan (March 17, 1899); Mazatlan. 

Sonora.— Near Alamos (January 6, 1899). 

Tepic.— Santa Teresa (August 8 and 12, 1897). 

Comparable detailed measurements of Piranga hepatica oreo- 
phasma and Piranga hepatica hepatica are as follows: 


79 


| OBERHOLSER, Subspecies of Piranga hepatica. 


Vol. XXXVI 
1919 


“odk [1 
b oT SaGGan| <9 21 L128 | £66 Sa[BUl9} AG Jo VdBIOAW 
91 (de LT ¢'18 86 ‘ueUIpP[Oy “VY “a | ‘9T6T ‘TT At y fe) 6IETFZ 
8 °F G'1z é 91 G'h8 “OOT “dophUT, “TMA | OTGT ‘OT APTN “BUOZILY “NV9}8[ J 
uejUBN “FOOSE “ONL 
jo ysvoqjiou saytur GZ | 6} PEPSSG 
“OT €°US 8°91 G'6L | ¢°66 ‘MOH OH] FIGT ‘OT ARI | = “ZV “SIAL Weqesy 
“3 0019 “PID UV] 6 999893 
8° ST £° 82 G'S 8 101 , ‘LO6I “LZ une "XaT, “SIN SOSTYD 
“33 0009 ‘UokuRD sulg | 6 CEESOT 
GFT GGG 61 8 86 “Tasjoyzeqg *D “H | “1061 ‘ZT Aine ‘sexo, “SUre}UNOT[ 
s1arq ‘uoAuey vidury re) LLPSII 
09 1°22 La 9°F8 | ¢°F0T Sa]BUI BAY Jo asBIOAY 
91 8° Ss Gq LT 8 COL » , | ‘68T ‘IT AFI , 2 EL6LET 
91 1Z 9T G8 901 “IOYystA “MV | ‘6ST ‘2 AR | “Ziy “eonyoeny Wog | © ZLOLET 
G'9T €% CLT cg | ¢°SOT "men “HfL | “S061 Zs AML | “OOrKeTT MON “SIT Ue? 
-1dvp odojs ysvayynog | 0 688981 
“GT i 4 S221 ¢°98 01 ‘URUIP[OD “VY “A | “SO6T ‘OT “dag | ‘xe MON “SHA OLNG:| =O 999¢0 
¢°9T rea 8°91 ¢'18 GOI | ‘JesjoyseqQ "D “H | “1061 ‘gE eune | = sexay, “SIJA SOSTYD 
“3 0009 ‘UoAURD oly | 6LESIT 
aes “uot ny “ON ‘SDJ, 
al 4 . . °3 . . . - 
Es semis snsie J, posodxy EeL UIA 107997199 a7eq Aqipeo0T XO “EN SA 


‘puspydoa.o noyoday viupsitg AO SNAWIOAdG JO SLNAWAYOSVA]L 


Auk 
Jan. 


¢°ST G8 6°91 g'08 | €°&6 ; Sa[VUIa} 9o14} JO FvIOAY 
3 9T 1G 8° LT €8 86 ” E681 ‘F ‘ueL “OOTXOTAL 
as ‘sofaloyy “BovABUIEND 5 IG9EFI 
g — G2 Z OL c8 96 C68T ‘2 “Sny ‘OorxeyA “We 
8 “Boul “Orepuoren® | “Wis | SP9ePrl 
S GT “8% 8°9T G9, 26 ‘UBUIP[OD "VY “A | “F681 “61 “3ny “OOTXOT 
S pue uosfaN *“M “A ‘BOVXeQ “epeieg eT | “Ud | GE9EFT 
3 
= 
& 0°9T Maree Lelie 2208: | °S286 S9[VUl VAY JO odvIDAY 
> 
S Boye ard Lie esGe 18 001 ; "E681 ‘9 “URE OdIX9TL 
3 : ‘sopaIoy, “VovAvusens ne) LEOEFI 
2 91 GG ST 8L 16 » "E681 “CI “49d SOD ECO TNE EO [2IOINy 
= ‘UBJoOA Pp FaL} OS9EFT 
ee LT & G Lt r8 16 ; “FEST ‘61 QO | OorxeyAl “BoeXeG ‘safay | 0 SE9SFT 
of CT G’&Z Seer €8 GOO 5 "SO06T ‘Gz ABTA “OOIXOTAT 
a ‘oration ‘autazfIUIQ | OSF98T1 
3 OT G°2Z SI by, 16 ‘ueUIpfor) WA | “F681 ‘Zo ANE “OOTXOTT ‘BOBXRC) 
ra pue UOSsfaN “MA “A ‘QadaquoJOT, aN | OFOSFI 
es = eS pee | eNO, ee es eh Sh | ee 
fa *MBTO 4NO , sane 
= fore *snsieB see “TeL “SUI *10j99T[9D ‘ayeqd *AypBIO'T “KOS at nai 


‘poyoday voyoday vbuvstg 40 SNAWIOGMG AO SLNAWAYASVATL 


80 


Co wf) OBERHOLSER, Notes on North American Birds. 81 


NOTES ON NORTH AMERICAN BIRDS. 
VIE 


BY HARRY C. OBERHOLSER. 


In continuation of previous papers! on North American birds, 
notes on six species are here offered. These belong to the following 
families: Anatide, Aquilide, Laride, Corvide, and Mniotiltide. 


Nettion carolinense (Gmelin). 


This well-known Teal has recently been treated as a subspecies 
of the common Teal of Europe (Nettion crecca).2 Our American 
Nettion carolinense in many respects very much resembles the 
European Teal, and, so far as we are able to determine, is, in the 
female, practically indistinguishable. The male of Nettion caro- 
linense, however, differs from the same sex of Nettion crecca in 
the possession of a distinct, usually broad, bar on the side of the 
breast, and by the entire lack of white on the scapulars, both inner 
and outer webs. The barring of the back and flanks is much finer 
and less conspicuous, but this, although diagnostic, is not so 
trenchant as the two other characters just mentioned. In all the 
large series of these two birds that we have examined we have not 
seen a male which showed any intergradation in the white bar on 
the side of the breast or in the white of the scapulars. While it is, 
of course, true that the great similarity of color pattern and of 
coloration, to say nothing of osteological resemblances, indicates 
clearly that both these birds descended from a common ancestor, 
and that at no very remote period were probably connected by 
either individual variation or geographic intermediates, and thus 


1 For the other papers in this series, cf. ‘The Auk,’ XXXIV, April, 1917, pp. 191-196; 
XXXIV, July, 1917, pp. 321-329; XXXIV, October, 1917, pp. 465-470; XXXV, January, 
1918, pp. 62-65; XXXV, April, 1918, pp. 185-187; and XXXV, October, 1918, pp. 463— 
467. 


2? Committee British Ornithologists’ Union, List British Birds, ed. 2, 1915, p. 171. 


(jo 


82 OBERHOLSER, Notes on North American Birds. Jans 


from a modern standpoint subspecies, they are now, in the male 
at least, separated by two absolutely constant characters, on 
account of which they should, of course, stand as distinct species. 


Circus cyaneus hudsonius (Linnzus). 


Dr. Hartert, in a recent publication,! treated the American Marsh 
Hawk, Circus hudsonius (Linneus), as a subspecies of the European 
Harrier, Circus cyaneus (Linneus). An examination of a large 
series of both these birds has been made with the object of determin- 
ing the desirability of this change, with the following result. 

The male of the American bird, Circus hudsonius, differs from 
the same sex of Circus cyaneus in its less uniform, darker, and more 
distinctly barred tail; its usually darker, less bluish (more brown- 
ish) upper surface; darker, less clearly bluish gray color through- 
out; and more or less barred and spotted posterior lower parts. 
The female is also darker, but the differences in this sex are not so 
distinctive. All the characters that separate Circus hudsonius 
from Circus cyaneus are clearly but average, with the exception of 
the spots on the posterior under surface, which appear to be nearly, 
if not quite, always present to a greater or less extent in the former 
bird. There are, however, occasional specimens of Circus hud- 
sonius, which in this respect so closely approach the unspotted 
condition of Circus cyaneus, and some of Circus cyaneus so much 
like Circus hudsonius, that a trinomial designation best serves to 
express the relationship now existing between the two birds. 
This is apparently one of those cases of a subspecies which is in 
about the last stages of complete specific segregation, and which in 
the course of time will be entirely distinct. At present, however, 
our Marsh Hawk should probably stand as Circus cyaneus hudsonius 
(Linnzeus). 


Halizetus albicilla brooksi Hume. 


Dr. Louis B. Bishop, a number of years ago, recorded the Gray 
Sea Eagle (Haliaetus albicilla) from Unalaska, in the Aleutian 
Islands, Alaska.2 Subsequently, Mr. A. H. Clark referred the 


1 Vogel palaarkt. Fauna, Heft [IX (Band II, Heft 3), October, 1914, p. 1142. 
2 North American Fauna, No. 19, 1900, p. 73. 


po ai OBERHOLSER, Notes on North American Birds. 83 


birds of this species from northeastern Asia and from Alaska to 
Halieetus albicilla brooksi Hume.! The present writer, in the 
course of other investigations, incidentally had occasion to verify 
the status of this Asiatic subspecies. The result serves to substan- 
tiate Mr. Clark’s statement that the Gray Sea Eagles from eastern 
Asia, the Commander Islands, and northern India are all so much 
smaller than European birds that their subspecific separation is 
necessary. The earliest name available for this form seems to be 
Haliaetus brooksi Hume,’ described from “ upper India.”” The Gray 
Sea Eagles occurring on the Aleutian Islands, or, in fact, anywhere 
else in Alaska, belong, of course, to this race, and their reference to 
Haliaetus albicilla brooksi Hume confirms its addition to the North 
American list. 


Larus canus brachyrhynchus Richardson. 


The American bird now called Larus brachyrhynchus is evidently 
very closely allied to the Old World Larus canus Linneeus. Study 
of a series of specimens of these two birds shows that about the only 
characters separating Larus brachyrhynchus from Larus canus are 
the average smaller size of the former, the usually greater amount 
of gray on the basal portion of the second and third primaries 
(counting from the outermost), and that this gray terminates 
distally in a small white or whitish spot. The difference in size 
and of the extent of the gray on the basal portion of these two 
primaries is at once seen to be merely of average character, so that 
the main distinction between the two supposed species is the white 
area on the third primary of Larus brachyrhynchus; and upon this 
rests the claim of Larus brachyrhynchus to specific distinctness 
from Larus canus. When sufficient material is examined, however, 
it becomes evident that even this character is not entirely constant, 
for individuals occur that quite bridge over the difference between 
the two forms. For example, a specimen in the Biological Survey 
collection, No. 193531, U. S. Nat. Mus., from Slave River, 
Mackenzie, collected on June 16, 1903, is, so far as its quill char- 
acters are concerned, almost perfectly typical Larus canus, yet it 


Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus., XX XVIII, April 30, 1910, p. 57. 
2 [bis, series 2, VI, No. XXIII, July, 1870, p. 438. 


84 ,OBERHOLSER, Notes on North American Birds. re 


is undoubtedly an individual variant of Larus brachyrhynchus. 
Likewise in some specimens of Old World Larus canus the whitish 
terminal area of the gray wedge on the third primary is indicated; 
and a specimen of Larus canus from Bering Island, No. 92894, 
U.S. Nat. Mus., has this gray wedge almost white at its distal end. 
These individual differences may to some degree account for some 
of the records of Larus canus in North America, though doubtless 
the latter does occasionally reach our coast. In view of the above 
facts it seems necessary to consider Larus brachyrhynchus a sub- 
species of Larus canus, and its name will therefore become Larus 
canus brachyrhynchus Richardson. 


Corvus brachyrhynchos caurinus Baird. 


The Crow described by Prof. S. F. Baird as Corvus caurinus | 
has been commonly considered a distinct species, although recently 
reduced by Mr. Ridgway ” to the rank of a subspecies. Study of a 
large series of the Northwestern Crow, in conjunction with Corvus 
brachyrhynchos hesperis, shows that there is apparently nothing in 
either size or color to warrant the status of Corvus caurinus Baird 
as a distinct species. There is absolutely no difference in color 
between this bird and Corvus brachyrhynchos hesperis. The very 
tangible differences which separate Corvus ossifragus Wilson from 
Corvus brachyrhynchos, in the glossiness of the upper and lower 
surfaces and the lack of squamate effect of the feathers on the back, 
are entirely absent in Corvus caurinus. In fact, the only visible 
character to distinguish the latter from Corvus brachyrhynchos hes- 
peris is its smaller size, and even this is at most only average. 
There is consequently no legitimate excuse for considering Corvus 
caurinus anything but a subspecies of Corvus brachyrhynchos, de- 
spite its somewhat different voice. It should, therefore, hereafter 
be called Corvus brachyrhynchos caurinus Baird. This, it may be 
noted, is in entire accord with the results of the exhaustive study 
of this problem made by Mr. Samuel N. Rhoads,* and also with 
the subsequent conclusions of Mr. H. S. Swarth.* 


1 Rep. Expl. & Surv. R. R. Pac., IX, 1858, p. 569 (Fort Steilacoom, Washington). 
2 Bull. U. S. Nat. Mus., No. 50, part III, 1904, p. 272. 

3'The Auk, X, No. 1, January, 1893, pp. 18-21. 

4 Univ. Calif. Publ. Zool., X, No. 1, February 13, 1912, p. 50. 


S| OBERHOLSER, Notes on North American Birds. 85 


Dendroica erithachorides castaneiceps Ridgway. 


The Golden Warbler commonly known as Dendroica bryanti 
castaneiceps is apparently confined to the Pacific coast of Mexico 
and Central America from Lower California to Costa Rica. Mr. 
Ridgway, in his most recent review of the group,! treated this bird 
as a subspecies of Dendroica bryanti Ridgway, from the Gulf coast 
of Mexico and the Caribbean coast of Central America; and in 
this opinion most subsequent writers have followed him. Exami- 
nation of available material in various museums, including much 
recently collected, particularly from Panama and Costa Rica, 
the latter partly by Mr. Ridgway himself, shows now that Dendroica 
bryanti is a subspecies of Dendroica erithachorides Baird, from 
northern Colombia and Panama, which Mr. Ridgway regarded as a 
distinct species. The difference between these two birds consists 
chiefly in the less heavily streaked breast and sides, and the thus 
more abruptly defined exterior margin of the rufous of the throat 
in Dendroica bryanti, together with the somewhat smaller size of 
the latter. Intergradation takes place both in size and in the 
character of the streaks on the lower parts; and there are speci- 
mens which it is difficult to assign to one race or the other. Since, 
therefore, Dendroica bryanti castaneiceps Ridgway? is but sub- 
specifically separable from Dendroica bryanti Ridgway,’ and as the 
latter, as above shown, is but a subspecies of Dendroica eritha- 
chorides Baird, it seems necessary to call the Mangrove Warbler 
of the Pacific coast of Mexico Dendroica erithachorides castaneiceps 
Ridgway. 


1 Ball. U. S. Nat. Mus., No. 50, part IT, 1902, p. 530. 

2 Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus., VIII, Sept. 2, 1885, p. 350, footnote (La Paz, Lower California). 

3 Dendroica viellottit var. bryanti, Ridgway, Amer. Nat., VII, October, 1873, p. 605. 
(Belize, British Honduras). 


86 Howe Lu, A N ew Seaside Sparrow. [ae 


Jan. 


DESCRIPTION OF A NEW SEASIDE SPARROW FROM 
FLORIDA. 


BY ARTHUR H. HOWELL. 


OnE of the surprising results of a short collecting trip made by 
the writer to Cape Sable, Florida, in February, 1918, was the 
discovery of a distinct new species of Seaside Sparrow. This may 
be described as follows: 


Thryospiza! mirabilis sp. nov. 
Cape Sable Seaside Sparrow. 


Type, No. 261,542, U. S. National Museum, Biological Survey Collec- 
tion; o adult, Cape Sable, Florida, February 18, 1918; collected by A. H. 
Howell; original number, 1599. 

Specific characters.— Most like Thryospiza maritima sennetti, but smaller, 
the upper-parts brighter and more greenish, the edgings on the tertials 
and scapulars more whitish; under-parts much more extensively whitish 
and the streaks much darker and more sharply defined. 

Description of type-— Pileum mouse gray, streaked (chiefly in two lateral 
stripes) with chetura black, washed on occiput with yellowish olive; hind 
neck pale yellowish olive, this color forming a rather conspicuous, broad, 
transverse band; interscapular region and rump olive (slightly paler than 
deep olive of Ridgway), streaked with fuscous, the scapulars broadly edged 
with white; upper tail coverts olive, with a broad median streak of fuscous 
and tipped with pale grayish; rectrices fuscous along vanes, mouse gray 
on inner webs, indistinctly barred with fuscous; outer webs citrine drab; 
tips margined with white. Supraloral region empire yellow; superciliary 
stripe pyrite yellow, bordered above with grayish and shading posteriorly 
to cream buff; lores, suborbital region, and auriculars neutral gray, mixed 
with whitish; postocular streak and short streaks on side of neck cheetura 
black; submalar stripe buffy white, bordered above and below with cheetura 
black. Primaries and secondaries fuscous, edged with olive; tertials dark 
fuscous, margined with buffy white; edge of wing empire yellow; lesser 
coverts pyrite yellow; middle coverts fuscous-black, edged with grayish 
olive; greater coverts fuscous, shaded with olive, and bordered on outer 


1 For the use of this name in place of Passerherbulus for the Seaside Sparrows see Ober- 
holser, Auk, April, 1918, p. 210. 


ee) Howe, A New Seaside Sparrow. 87 


web with cinnamon, the terminal portion darker and margined with buffy 
white; under-parts white, heavily streaked on chest, sides, and flanks with 
dark fuscous, the same areas faintly washed with cinnamon; under tail 
coverts white, tinged with cinnamon and streaked with fuscous; thighs 
drab; lining of wings dull white, mottled with hair brown; upper mandible 
blackish, lower mandible dark mouse gray. 

Measurements.— Type (adult male): wing, 57; tail, 51; exposed cul- 
men, 12; depth of bill at base, 6.5; tarsus, 22; middle toe, 17. Average 
of five adult males: Wing, 58.2 (57-60); tail, 51.4 (50-53); exposed cul- 
men, 12.1 (12-12.5); depth of bill at base, 6.6 (6.5-7); tarsus, 21.9 (21.5 
—22); middle toe, 16.8 (16-17).. One adult female: 53; 47.5; 12.5; 7; 
22; 16. 


Remarks.— This species differs so strikingly from all the other 
Seaside Sparrows that intergradation with any of the forms seems 
very improbable. From its nearest geographical neighbor, Thryo- 
spiza maritima peninsule, occupying the west coast of Florida 
from Tarpon Springs northward, mzrabilis differs more than from 
other races of that species. Its closest affinities are with Thryospiza 
maritima sennetti, which inhabits the coast of Texas; it differs 
from this and from all other races of maritima in its more extensively 
white under-parts, with more sharply defined streaking, and more 
greenish upper-parts. In size, and in the white under-parts with 
sharply defined streaks, it approaches Thryospiza nigrescens of the 
east coast of Florida, but differs widely from that species in the 
color of the upper-parts. 

Individual variation is not extensive; .in some specimens the 
streaks on the under-parts are mouse gray instead of fuscous; the 
tail feathers vary from mouse gray to hair brown, and in all speci- 
mens except the type the white tips are nearly or quite obsolete 
(probably worn off); the single female examined is washed beneath 
with olive-buff. 

The limits of the range of this species are at present unknown, 
but probably it is confined to the coastal marshes in the vicinity 
of Cape Sable, where doubtless it is a permanent resident. It is 
known from six specimens taken there by the writer between Feb- 
ruary 13 and 18,1918. The species appeared to be only moderately 
numerous in the area traversed. 


88 Cory, New Birds from South America. (i 


DESCRIPTIONS OF NEW BIRDS FROM SOUTH 
AMERICA. 


CHARLES B. CORY. 


Taraba major approximans subsp. nov. 


Type from Serra Baturite, Ceara, Brazil. Adult male, No. 49017, 
Field Museum of Natural History. Collected by R. H. Becker, July 19, 
1918. 

Description. — Similar to T. major major from southern Brazil, Para- 
guay, etc., but with more white on the tail, bands on tail more complete 
and larger, and all the tail feathers with some white markings, the middle 
feathers with borders marked with small white spots; white edgings of 
the primaries and wing coverts broader and more conspicuous. 

Measurements.— Wing, 91; tail, 102; bill, 25; tarsus, 33 mm. 


Remarks.— Seventeen specimens examined. The females have 
the upper parts brighter and more rufous than in females of either 
T. major major or T. major semifasciatus. Specimens from Macaco 
Seeco, near Andarahy, Bahia, appear to be intermediate. 


Erionotus cearensis sp. nov. 


Type from Serra Baturite, Ceara, Brazi!. Adult male, No. 47674, 
Field Museum of Natural History. Collected by R. H. Becker, July 15, 
1913. 

Description.— Similar to Erionotus cerulescens (Vieill.) from Paraguay 
(and agreeing with that species in having the tertials with grayish white 
edges, the whitish belly, and elongated marginal spot, 12 mm., on outer 
tail feather), but differs in having the white markings on the wing coverts 
decidedly broader; terminal third of under tail coverts pure white and 
bill heavier and slightly longer. 

Measurements.— Wing, 71; tail, 69; culmen, 16 mm. 


Drymophila richmondi nom. nov. 


Dr. Hellmayr (Abh. Ak. Wiss., Munchen, XXII, 1906, p. 663) proposed 
Fermicivora ochropyga as a new name for Formicivora striata (nee Thamno- 
philus striatus Spix) Sclater, Cat. Bds. Brit. Mus., XV, 1890, p. 252, but 
Dr. C. W. Richmond has called my attention to the fact that ochropyga 
is also preoccupied by Formicivora ochropyga Pelzeln. I, therefore, take 
pleasure in proposing that it shall be called Drymophila richmondi. 


cons | Cory, New Birds from South America. 89 


Furnarius agnatus endoecus subsp. nov. 


Type from Encontrados, Zulia, northwestern Venezuela (in heavily 
forested region southwest of Lake Maracaibo). Adult female, No. 50546, 
Field Museum of Natural History. Collected by M. P. Anderson, Novem- 
ber 27, 1913. 

Description.— Similar to F’. agnatus agnatus, but upper-parts, wings and 
tail darker (more chestnut rufous), and crown very much darker (not so 
brown as in leucopus from Guiana), but color approaching nearer to leu- 
copus than it does to that of agnatus agnatus from Santa Marta; abdomen 
paler, more whitish. 


Remarks.— F. a. endecus differs from F. a. venezuelensis (from 
the arid coast region east of Lake Maracaibo) in much darker and 
more brownish crown, much darker more chestnut-rufous upper 
parts, wings and tail, and darker and more rufous breast. 


Cinclodes neglectus sp. nov. 


Type from Mountains near Otuzco, (alt. about 11,000 ft.) western Peru. 
Male, No. 50559, Field Museum of Natural History. Collected by W. H. 
Osgood and M. P. Anderson, March 19, 1912. 

Description.— Ground color of crown dark brown (near Dresden brown) 
approaching that of C. fuscus, but feathers of anterior crown and forehead 
with small tawny shaft spots; eyelids and superciliary stripe whitish; 
back dull reddish brown becoming strongly rufous brown on rump and 
upper tail coverts; tail rufous brown, the three outer tail feathers entirely 
bright rufous; throat dull whitish, the feathers bordered with dusky; 
breast feathers tawny white bordered with dusky; rest of under-parts 
grayish brown becoming slightly rufous brown on the flanks and under 
tail coverts; nearly all of the feathers of the breast, abdomen and sides 
with narrow, pale (whitish or tawny white) shaft streaks; exposed portion 
of quills rufous; under wing coverts tawny, more or less marked with 
dusky; band near base of inner quills rufous; legs and feet pale brown 
(in dried skin). 

Measurements — Wing, 84; tail, 70; bill (upper mandible broken) 
about 18; tarsus, 27 mm. 


Remarks.— Although but one specimen was taken, this seems to 
be a well marked species distinguished by its rufous tail, strongly 
marked under-parts, pale legs and feet, ete. 


90 PauMER, Thirty-sixth Stated Meeting of the A. O. U. fam 


THIRTY-SIXTH STATED MEETING.OF THE 
AMERICAN ORNITHOLOGISTS’ UNION. 


BY T. S. PALMER. 


Tue Thirty-sixth Stated Meeting of the American Ornitholo- 
gists’ Union convened in New York City, on Monday, November 
11, 1918. Owing to the epidemic of influenza which had prevailed 
for some weeks it was necessary, for the first time in the history 
of the Union, to omit the public sessions and confine the sessions 
to business meetings of the Council, Fellows and Members. The 
meetings were held on the historic occasion of the signing ‘of the 
armistice and amid the noisy celebration of the end of the great 
world war. The attendance included 14 Fellows and_ several 
members. Among those present were two Founders of the Union, 
Dr. J. A. Allen and Dr. A. K. Fisher, and three Fellows originally 
elected in 1883, Wiliam Dutcher, Dr. Geo. Bird Grinnell and 
John H. Sage. 

At the meeting of the Fellows called to order in the American 
Museum of Natural History at 8.05 P. M. by the President, 
John H. Sage, 12 Fellows were present. The amendment to the 
By-Laws proposed at the last Stated Meeting, making the fee of 
Patrons one thousand dollars, was formally adopted. 

At the meeting of the Fellows and Members called to order by 
the President at 8.20 P. M., 13 Fellows and 4 Members were present. 
Following the calling of the roll the list of members in military 
and naval service was read (see last pages). The report of the Sec- 
retary giving the status of the membership was then presented. 
This report showed a net gain of 62 members during the year. 
In November, 1917, the total number of members was 891 while 
the present membership was 953 distributed as follows: Fellows, 
50; Retired Fellows, 2; Honorary Fellows, 15; Corresponding 
Fellows, 56; Members, 80; and Associates, 750. During the 
year the Union lost 14 members by death, 13 by resignation and 
20 by delinquency. The deaths (including two in the previous 


| Paumer, Thirty-sixth Stated Meeting of the A. O. U. 91 


year, news of which was delayed) comprised those of one Retired 
Fellow, one Honorary Fellow, one Corresponding Fellow, and 11 
Associates, three of whom were killed in action in France. The 
deceased members are as follows: 


Lyman Belding,' Retired Fellow, aged 88}, died at Stockton, Calif., 

Nov. 22, 1917 

Dr. Friedrich Hermann Otto Finsch,? OKO) Fellow, of Brunswick, 

Germany, died in his 78th year, Jan. 31, 1917 

Col. William Vincent Legge,* Corresponding Fellow, died in his 75th year 

at St. Mary’s, Tasmania, Mar. 25, 1918 
Eric Brooke Dunlop,‘ of Winnipeg, Man., aged 30, killed in action. 

. May 19, 1917 

Miss Martha Burr Banks, of Westport, Conn., Dec. 18, 1917 
Rowland Gibson Hazard,® aged 63, died at Santa Barbara, Calif. 

Jan. 23, 1918 


George Batten,® aged 64, died at Montclair, N, J. Feb. 16, 1918 
Prof. Jonathan Young Stanton,’ died in his 84th year at Lewiston, Me., 
Feb. 17, 1918 


Henry Justice,* died in his 74th year at Philadelphia, Pa., Mar. 1, 1918 
Mrs. Sara Anderson Hubbard, died in her 86th year, at Brooklyn, N. Y., 


July 31, 1918 
Walter Freeman McMahon ° of New York City, aged 29, killed in action, 


Aug. 28, 1918 
Prof. David Ernest Lantz,!° died in his 64th year at Washington, D. C., 


Oct. 7, 1918 
Douglas Clifford Mabbott " of Washington, D. C., aged 25, killed in action, 


Sept. 15, 1918 
Mrs. S. W. Powell of West Beckett, Mass., died 1918 


The Secretary reported that notices of the last annual meeting 
had been published in ‘Bird-Lore,’ ‘Cassinia,’ ‘The Condor,’ 
‘Guide to Nature,’ and ‘Science.’ In an effort to secure’ greater 
publicity of the work of the Union brief notices had been sent to 


1 Hoe peu eLy IE see Auk, XX XV, p. 106. 
2 see Auk, XX XV, p. 381. 


Ais he “~~ see, Auk, XX X-V, p. 510. 
ed . “~~ see Auk, XXXV, p. 266. 
5 ¢ “~~ see Auk, XX XV, p. 264. 
Ok $s “see Auk, XX XV, p. 264. 
4 ¢ ¢ “see Auk, XX XV, p. 511. 
Cee i see Auk, XXXV, p. 266. 
9 


see Auk, XXXVI, No. 1. 


rs § “ see Auk, XXXVI, No. 1. 
are Y “see Auk, XXXVI, No. 1. 


92 Patmer, Thirty-sixth Stated Meeting of the A. O. U. [ia 
“The Emu,’ ‘Ibis,’ and ‘Nature,’ and an account of the Union 
had been published in the ‘ American Museum Journal’ for October, 
1918. 

In order to provide as far as possible for the dues of members 
in military service, requests for subscriptions to a memorial fund 
were sent to a selected list of members during the campaign for the 
Third Liberty Loan. This fund was to form part of the permanent 
funds of the Union and was to be invested in Liberty Bonds. The 
interest during the period of the war would be used to meet the 
dues of members in service and later for publications. The 
responses to this appeal were very generous and resulted in the 
acquisition of a fund of nearly $1700. By vete of the Council 
those contributors who subscribed an amount equal to the life 
membership fee will hereafter be carried on the rolls as life mem- 
bers. By this action one Fellow, two Members and three Asso- 
ciates will be exempt in future from the payment of annual dues. 

In April cards were sent to 100 libraries known to have ‘ The 
Auk’ inquiring as to whether the sets were complete and whether 
the two general Indexes and the last Check List were available 
for reference. The correspondence which ensued resulted in the 
sale by the Treasurer of a number of volumes of ‘The Auk’ and 
also of ‘Indexes’ and ‘Check Lists.’ 

Some progress was made during the year in an intensive study 
of the membership of the Union. A geographical list of the 
members arranged by states was prepared and small maps showing 
the geographical distribution of members in 1888 and 1918 were 
exhibited. A consolidated index containing the names of all 
persons who had ever been connected with the Union was also. 
begun. In accordance with the vote taken at the last meeting 
lists of the members ‘Called to the Colors’ were published in 
each number of ‘The Auk’ and copies of these lists were forwarded 
to such of the members in service as could be reached. Copies: 
of the report of the last meeting and of the discussion on ‘Orni- 
thological Work in 1918’ were also distributed to the Correspond- 
ing Fellows. 

The report of the treasurer showed the finances of the Union 
to be in a highly satisfactory condition with a substantial bal- 
ance of $2463.89 in receipts over current expenses and a total. 


oe al Paumer, Thirty-sixth Stated Meeting of the A. O. U. 93 


surplus including subscriptions to the special memorial fund and 
income from life memberships and other invested funds, of more 
than $6000. 

The result of the election of officers for the ensuing year was as 
follows: President, John H. Sage: Vice Presidents, Witmer 
Stone and Geo. Bird Grinnell; Secretary, T. S. Palmer; Treasurer, 
Jonathan Dwight; Members of the Council, Ruthven Deane, 
William Dutcher, Joseph Grinnell, Frederic A. Lucas, Harry C. 
Oberholser, Charles W. Richmond, and Thomas S. Roberts. 

On recommendation of the Council the following five Honorary 
and fourteen Corresponding Fellows were duly elected. 


Honorary FELLows: 


Dr. Roberto Dabbene, Buenos Aires, Argentina. 
Alwyn Karl Haagner, Pretoria, Transvaal. 

Dr. Einar Lénnberg, Stockholm, Sweden. 

Dr. Auguste Ménégaux, Paris, France. 

Dr. Peter Suschkin, Kharkov, Russia. 


CORRESPONDING FELLOWS: 


Edwin Ashby, Wittauga, Blackwood, South Australia. 

E. C. Stuart Baker, Secretary B. O. U., London, England. 

Dr. Louis Brasil, Caen, France. 

Dr. Walter E. Collinge, St. Andrews, Scotland. 

Nils Gyldenstolpe, Stockholm, Sweden. 

Tom Iredale, Ealing, England. 

Rev. Francis Charles Robert Jourdain, Abingdon, England. 
Cecil Boden Kloss, Kuala Lumpur, Federated Malay States. 
Nagamichi Kuroda, Tokio, Japan. 

Enrique Lynch Arribdlzaga, Resistencia, Argentina. 

Dr. Charles Theodore Ramsden, Guantanamo, Cuba. 

Herbert C. Robinson, Kuala Lumpur, Federated Malay States. 
Charles Francis Massy Swynnerton, Gungunyava, South Rhodesia. 
Norman Frederic Ticehurst, St. Leonards-on-Sea, England. 


Dr. Harold C. Bryant, Berkeley, Calif.; George K. Cherrie, 
Newfane, Vt.; Lieut. Ludlow Griscom, New York City; Lieut. 
James L. Peters, Harvard, Mass.; and Robert W. Williams, 
Washington, D. C., were elected to the class of Members, and the 


a 


94 Paumer, Thirty-sixth Stated Meeting of the A. O. U. (Fae 


Jan.. 


following one hundred and forty-seven persons were elected 
Associates : 


Miss Harriet Abbott, Box 125, Fryeburg, Maine. 

Joseph Moody Akerman, High St., Newburyport, Mass. 

Ransom Perry Allaman, R. D. 4, Bedford, Penn. i 

Lucius Armitage, 282 E. 162d St., New York City. 

Ralph Arnold, 825 Union Oil Building, Los Angeles, Calif. 

Mrs. Benjamin Bachrach, 1437 West Main St., Decatur, Il. 

John Leonard Bagg, 70 Fairfield Ave., Holyoke, Mass. 

Alfred M. Bailey, Louisiana State Museum, New Orleans, La. 

Miss Katharine Bruce Baird, 815 Webster St., N. W., Washington,,. 
DC: 

Edward M. Ball, Falls Church, Va. 

Miss Helen Barker, Sandusky, O. 

Rev. John Mallery Bates, St. Paul, Nebr. 

Dr. James Baxter, Chatham, New Brunswick. 

Miss Clara Kern Bayliss, 6059 Harper Ave., Chicago, Ill. 

Mrs. Willard Bayliss, Eveleth, Minn. 

Ernest Harold Baynes, Meriden, N. H. 

Miss Frances Bigelow, Elkhart, Ind. 

Miss Marion Bole, Waterbury, Conn. 

Frederick Gilmer Bonfils, 1500 East 10th Ave., Denver, Colo. 

Miss Bertha Louise Brown, 53 Court St., Bangor, Me. 

Mrs. Herbert Brown, 434 E. 2d St., Tucson, Ariz. 

Rollin E. Buchanan, Excelsior, Minn. 

Frank Seiler Butterworth, Madison, Conn. 

Mrs. James C. Buzzell, 11 Henderson St., Bangor, Maine. 

Mrs. Hiram Byrd, Winter Park, Fla. 

Miss Ethel B. Capling, Wiseton, Sask. 

Mrs. Olivia Garnsey Carroll, Rutland, Mass. 

Clifford Mills Case, 16 Burton St., Hartford, Conn. 

Robert. Carsen Caskey, Morristown, N. J. 

Mrs. Arthur E. Caswell, 241 Union St., Athol, Mass. 

Charles William Clagett, Upper Marlboro, Prince George Co., Md. 

C. Irvin Clay, Box 353, Eureka, Calif. 

P. Sidney Conger, Prairie du Sac, Wis. 

Blair Coursen, 64th & University Avenues, Chicago, II. 

Dr. Henry H. Covell, 1600 East Ave., Rochester, N. Y. 

Norman Criddle, Treesbank, Man. 

Albert Ashley Cross, Huntington, Hampshire Co., Mass. 

Miss Joann Olivia Crowell, Dennis, Mass. 

Prof. Byron Cummings, Univ. Arizona, Tucson, Ariz. 

Lee Raymond Dice, Biological Survey, Washington, D. C. 

Alexander Dawes DuBois, Dutton, Mont. 


| PautMerR, Thirty-sizth Stated Meeting of the A. O. U. 95 


Miss Lulu Dunbar, R. D. 1, Elkhorn, Wis. 
Howard Eaton, Wolf, Wyo. 
Miss Katharine May Edwards, Wellesley College, Wellesley, Mass. 
Sidney E. Ekblaw, R. F. D. 23, Rantoul, Ill. 
Willard Ayres Eliot, 1011 Thurman St., Portland, Ore. 
Henry Lane Eno, Princeton, N. J. 
George A. Eyer, Short Hills, N. J. 
Mrs. William Falger, Modesto, Calif. 
Francis Apthorp Foster, Edgartown, Mass. 
Leonard Freeman Jr., 1374 Elizabeth St., Denver, Colo. 
Miss Edna Gainsforth, Smithfield, Nebr. 
Mrs. Frank Bemis Goode, Billings St., Sharon, Mass. 
A. Lignori Gormley, Arnprior, Ont. 
E. W. Graves, Spring Hill, Ala. 
Walter G. Guth, 3929 Greenview Ave., Chicago, Ill. 
Arthur Henry Hardisty, 2326 First St., N. W., Washington, D. C. 
Harold Ira Hartshorn, 53 South 12th St., Newark, N. J. 
Mrs. C. F. Harvey, Vernon Hall, Kinston, N. C. 
G. 8. Hauxhurst, The Cadillack, 17th and Walnut Ave., Cleveland, O. 
Miss Hester Heacock, Sec. Wyncote Bird Club, Wyncote, Pa. 
John Brooks Henderson, 16th St. & Florida Ave., N. W., Washington, 
ID EGE 
Mrs. Elizabeth Adams Herrick, Topsfield, Mass. 
Dr. C. Gordon Hewitt, Dept. Agriculture, Ottawa, Canada. 
Andrew Whitman Higgins, Sandwich, Mass. 
Mrs. G. B. Hoag, Elko, Nev. 
Richard Montague Hunt, Mus. Vertebrate Zool., Berkeley, Calif. 
Mrs. Gertrude H. Husher, 821 8S. Hope St., Los Angeles, Calif. 
Mrs. Silkman Elting Hyde, Mayfield, Idaho. 
Ralph Waldo Jackson, R. D. 1, Cambridge, Md. 
Dr. George Herman Jennings, Jewett City, Conn. 
Wm. Frost Jones, Norway, Maine. 
George L. Kaeding, Battle Mountain, Nev. 
George L. Kirk, Rutland, Vt. 
Albert J. Kirn, Solomon, Kans. 
Roy M. Langdon, Sec. Maywood Bird Club, Maywood, II. 
Prof. Austin P. Larrabee, Yankton College, Yankton, 8. D. 
George Augustus Lawyer, 1931 17th St., N. W., Washington, D. C. 
Ernest G. Liebold, 94 Rhode Island Ave., Highland Park, Mich. 
Clarence M. Lindsay, 213 Congress St., Brooklyn, N. Y. 
Charles Irving Long, 130 Fifth Ave., Roselle, N. J. 
Richard D. Lusk, Winkelman, Ariz. 
Otto McCreary, Geneva, N. Y. 
Myles Standish McGeever, 60 Keene St., Lowell, Mass. 
Thomas Arthur McHarg, 725 Highland Ave., Boulder, Colo. 
George Marvin Marckres, Sharon, Conn. 


96 


Paumer, Thirty-sizth Stated Meeting of the A. O. U. ees 


H. H. Mitchell, Provincial Museum, Normal School, Regina, Sask. 

Miss Carrie Ella Miller, 36 Cottage St., Lewiston, Me. 

Dr. Loye Holmes Miller, State Normal School, Los Angeles, Calif. 

Adelbert John Moody, Aitna Life Ins. Co., Hartford, Conn. 

Dr. Wm. Ladd Moody, Newport, R. I. 

William Henry Moore, Mouth Keswick, R. M. D. 1, N. B. 

Charles B. Morss, 35 Greenleaf St., Bradford, Mass. 

Edwin Lincoln Moseley, Bowling Green, O. 

E. D. Nauman, Box 606, Sigourney, Ia. 

Donald J. Nicholson, Orlando, Fla. 

Mrs. Carrie Morse Norton, Faulkton, S. D. 

Mrs. Edith Hoilick Oliver, Authors’ League of America, 34 W 42d St., 
New York, N. Y. 

Henry W. Osgood, 16 Elm St., Pittsfield, N. H. 

Mrs. Bertha Ellis Palmer, 1939 Biltmore St., N. W., Washington, D.C. 

Miss Elizabeth Day Palmer, 1741 S. Harvard Blvd., Los Angeles, Calif. 

Miss Jennie 8. Parks, 128 Crafts Road, Chestnut Hill, Mass. 

John Roy Pemberton, 71 Clarendon Ave., San Francisco, Calif. 

Miss Elizabeth Alice Simpson Pennell, 252 Maine St., Brunswick, Me. 

E. H. Perkins, Kingston, R. I. 

Wright McEwen Pierce, Box 343, Claremont, Calif. 

Mrs. F. A. Pritchard, 203 N. Court St., Medina, O. 

Emmet Augustus Quarles, 40 Davenport Drive, Stamford, Conn. 

Miss Mary Estelle Raker, 1484 E. Sherman St., Portland, Ore. 

Walter S. Ratliff, Richmond, Ind. 

Henry Cushier Raven, Bay Shore, L. I., N. Y. 

Mrs. Bruce Reid, Port Arthur, Tex. 

Henry J. Rust, Box 683, Coeur d’Alene, Idaho. 

Miss Myra M. Sampson, 8 Paradise Road, Northampton, Mass. 

Remi H. Santens, Carnegie Museum, Pittsburgh, Pa. 

J. J. Schafer, Port Byron, IIl. 

Julien Eliot Schonnegel, 92 Morningside Ave., 122d St., New York. 

Will Scott, Bloomington, Ind. 

James W. Sewell Jr., 2218 Patterson St., Nashville, Tenn. 

Foster L. Shelley, Waukegan, Il. 

John A. Silver, Darlington, Md. 

Miss Ethel M. Smith, 57 N. Pleasant St., Amherst, Mass. 

Joseph Dewey Soper, R. D. 2, Preston, Ont. 

Paul Haynes Steele, 1429 Cherokee St., Denver, Colo. 

Mrs. Jesse Stephenson, Monte Vista, Colo. 

Rev. Alfred Luther Struthers, Townsend, Mass. 

Dana W. Sweet, Phillips, Me. 

Loren E. Taylor, R. D. 2, Reno, Nev. 

Miss Mabel Thurston Tilton, Vineyard Haven, Mass. 

Miss Annie Florence Towne, Topsfield, Mass. 

J. F. Truesdell, Equitable Bldg., Denver, Colo. 


oe reat Pautmer, Thirty-sixth Stated Meeting of the A. O. U. 97 


Mrs. George M. Turner, Riverside, Calif. 

Asam H. Twitchell, Flat, Alaska. 

Dr. Eugene U. Ufford, Central St., Auburndale, Mass. 

Miss Katie Vallandingham, 811 Highland Ave., Carrollton, Ky. 

Samuel Henry Vandergrift, 311 Riggs Building, Washington, D. C. 

Prof. Charles Taylor Vorhies, University of Arizona, Tucson, Ariz. 

Ernest Pillsbury Walker, Wrangell, Alaska. 

C. G. Watson, London, Ont. 

Rey. Le Roy Titus Weeks, Emmetsburg, Ia. 

Mrs. J. W. Wheeler, R. D. 1, Tucson, Ariz. 

Miss Lena Catharine Wileye, Buckland, Mass. 

Enrique R. Williams, Camoa, Province of Habana, Cuba. 

H. V. Williams, Grafton, N. D. 

Todd Albert Wingard, care Dr. C. W. Richmond, 1929 Park Road, 
Washington, D. C. 

Prof. Lyman Child Wooster, Ft. Hays Normal School, Hays, Kans. 

Rev. Charles John Young, Brighton, Ont. 


The Committee on Biography and Bibliography, through its 
chairman, Dr. Palmer, submitted a brief verbal report showing 
progress in several of the projects mentioned in previous reports. 
Dr. Glover M. Allen, who has been appointed a member of the 
Committee, has been devoting his attention mainly to the prepa- 
ration of an index of papers relating to types and special collections 
of birds and has already brought together about 200 titles. Work 
has been continued on the ‘Index of Portraits of Ornithologists’ 
and the entries have been increased from 700 to about 770, of which 
nearly 50 per cent are those of present or past members of the 
Union. In addition to new entries a number of new portraits of 
individuals already in the list have been indexed. Progress has 
also been made on the ‘Bibliography of Bibliographies.” Much 
time has been devoted to the study already mentioned of the 
membership of the Union and to securing full names of the members 
to complete the records. In the matter of manuscripts it is inter- 
esting to mention that the valuable set of diaries of the late Prof. 
F. E. L. Beal, comprising more than 50 volumes and extending 
over a period of nearly 40 years, has recently been deposited 
in the library of the U. S. Department of Agriculture; and that 
an interesting manuscript of Titian R. Peale, relating to the 
history of the Wilkes Exploring Expedition, has been acquired by 
the Smithsonian Institution. 


98 Pautmer, Thirty-sizth Stated Meeting of the A. O. U. 


Liaw: 


In accordance with the recommendation of the Council the invi- 
tation extended by the British Ornithologists’ Union to the A. O. U. 
to join in a coéperative enterprise for the preparation of a series 
of Check Lists of the birds of the principal zoélogical regions of the 
world, arranged on a uniform plan, to be known as the ‘Systema 
Avium’ (see ‘The Auk,’ XXXV, p. 509), received favorable 
consideration and was referred to the committee on Classification 
and Nomenclature with power to act. 

Resolutions were adopted expressing the thanks of the Union to 
the President and Trustees of the American Museum of Natural 
History for the courtesies extended during the 36th meeting of 
the Union, and also requesting the states of Oregon and California 
through their respective Legislative and Executive branches to 
take action to cede to the United States jurisdiction over such 
portions of the Malheur and Klamath Lake Bird Reservations as 
may be necessary to insure the permanent preservation of these 
refuges by the Federal Government. 

On Tuesday afternoon, some of the officers of the Union under 
the guidance of Dr. Grinnell visited Audubon Park in the vicinity 
of 157th St. and Broadway and inspected the three houses where 
Audubon and his sons, Victor and John Woodhouse Audubon, 
lived during their later years. A visit was also paid to Trinity 
Cemetery, only a few blocks away, where Audubon and George 
N. Lawrence are buried. 

On the following day the Treasurer and Secretary spent several 
hours in the library of the New York Historical Society (on 77th 
Street, opposite the southeast corner of the American Museum), 
examining the original drawings of Audubon’s great work on the 
‘Birds of America.’ This wonderful collection of drawings, 
preserved in five large portfolios, was purchased direct from Mrs. 
J. J. Audubon, nearly half a century ago. Apparently its existence 
is not generally known and it seems to have been seen by com- 
paratively few ornithologists. An examination of it either super- 
ficially or with a reading glass will well repay any one who visits 
the library. 

Although the omission of the public meetings with the oppor- 
tunities for the presentation of papers and the usual social inter- 
course proved a great disappointment to many of the members, 


S| Patmer, Thirty-sixth Stated Meeting of the A. O. U. 99 
it is gratifying to know that the Union has passed through the 
trying ordeals of war times without increasing its dues or cutting 
down its journal and without decrease either in its membership or 
income. In fact the past year has proved one of the most pros- 
perous in its whole history. 

The next meeting will be held in New York City, in 1919, at a 
date to be determined by the local committee. 


100 General Notes. Kees 


GENERAL NOTES. 


Further Notes on the “ Fishy ” Flavor of Birds.— Since publishing 
on this subject in the last issue of ‘The Auk’ (October 1918, pp. 474-6), 
the writer has been favored by correspondents with various valuable items. 
These are presented under appropriate headings selected from the con- 
clusions of the former paper. 

1. Certain individual birds of species not habitual fish eaters have their 
flesh tainted by a flavor which popularly is called “fishy.” Mr. C. H. 
Young, of the Canadian Geological Survey, reports according to Mr. P. A. 
Taverner, that last spring at Shoal Lake, Manitoba, he shot two Golden 
Plover, which upon trial proved to be so “‘fishy ”’ as to be almost uneatable. 
The two persons who ate them both became ill afterwards, while four or 
five others participating in other parts of the same meal were unaffected. 
Mr. Taverner states that a stew made from two Canada Geese killed on 
Red Deer River July 1917 was strongly fishy. Mr. Taverner again, “ A 


batch of Semipalmated Sandpipers killed on the tidal mud flats on Miscou ~ 


Island, in spring of 1914 were so fishy as to be edible only when other meat 
was lacking.” Also ‘Juvenile Harlequin ducks raised on and never off 
from a small fishless lake in Jasper Park were so fishy as to be inedible.” 
(This point is mentioned in (The Canadian Alpine Journal), Vol. [X, 1918, 
p. 63). 

2. Habitual fish-eating birds do not necessarily taste fishy. 

Loon. Average proportion of fish in diet 80%. Summer 1918. Tried 
an old bird, found it tough and not attractive in flavor but without trace 
of fishiness. (Taverner.) 

Herring Gull.— Fish in diet, 54%. The fishermen of Nova Scotia eat 
a great many. (Dr. L. C. Jones.) An immature Herring Gull taken at 
Miscou Island in May was strongly fishy, but the inhabitants of the shores 
of the Gulf of St. Lawrence regard young summer and fall birds as great 
delicacies. (Taverner.) 

Double-crested Cormorant.— Fish in diet, almost 100%. Dr. C. W. 
Townsend says: “‘ The last time I was in Labrador I ate a Double-crested 
Cormorant, whose stomach was filled with fish, and found it delicious with- 
out a trace of fishy flavor....The Cormorant almost melted in one’s 
mouth, and although I could not induce the two sailors to touch it, the 
Captain, much to his surprise, found it good.” 

Hooded Merganser.— Fish in diet, 25%. Ned Hollister states that 
these birds are regularly shot and eaten at Delavan Lake, Wisconsin, being 
as well flavored as any of the ducks killed there. In his family they were 
preferred to Bluebills. 

Bittern.— Fish in diet, 15%. Both adult and young are very delicate 
and tasty. Not as hearty as the larger Herons, almost equal to Partridge 
(Ruffed Grouse) but less dry. (Taverner.) 


per XVI) General Notes. 101 


Great Blue Heron.— Fish in diet, 55%. J. Josselyn in his ‘ Two 
Voyages to New England’ states that the finest game the colonists found 
was the Great Blue Heron. I have tried it and in flavor it is much like the 
Seoters, but the meat is much finer grained and very rich in fat. (Jones.) 
Adult is rather tough but of very fine flavor, a hearty meat more like beef 
than that of a bird. Juvenile, tender and more delicate. I regard this 
bird as the finest wild bird I have ever eaten under camp conditions. Tried 
it fried, broiled, and stewed. (Taverner.) Have found the young bird in 
the first autumn delicious eating. (Witmer Stone.) 

Green Heron. Fish in diet, 40%. Very good, a little more delicate 


than the Night Heron. (Taverner.) 


Black-crowned Night Heron.— Fish in diet, 40%. Very good, not 
quite as hearty as the Great Blue Heron. (Taverner.) 

Mr. Taverner also reports that at Perce in 1914 and 1915 he tested 
Puffins, Murres and Razor-billed Auks, birds which make fish about 60% 
of their diet, and found all ot them delicious. 

In considering evidence on this subject it is necessary to distinguish 
clearly between a true fishy taste and the much more common merely 
strong or rank flavor. They are commonly confused. It has been sug- 
gested that fishy flavor may be due to a diet of mollusks rather than of fish, 
but in the writer’s opinion this theory will no mere bear searching analysis 
than the other. For instance Scoters and Eiders, almost exclusive mollusk 
feeders along the New England coast, are not fishy in flavor, and may easily 
be made into good dishes as the writer knows from experience. Robin 
Snipe collected on Wallops Island, Virginia, in spring and found to be 
feeding exclusively on small mussels, were not at all fishy, in fact were as 
good as any of the other shorebirds. In considering the effect of food upon 
flavor it is necessary also to recognize a certain specificity in flavor. For 
instance, in the corn belt hogs and cattle are kept under identical conditions 
and have with only minor exceptions the same foods; yet there is no chance 
of confusing the pork and beef they yield. Somewhat the same case is 
that of guinea fowl and chickens reared upon the same diet, but in flavor 
very easy to distinguish. 

The writer does not wish to be understood to believe that food does not 
influence flavor. Remarks by correspondents indicate that they got an 
impression to this effect from the previous contribution, just what an effort 
was made to avoid. The Spruce Grouse and the Sage Hen, for instance, are 
two striking examples among American birds of food controlling flavor. 
The points chiefly emphasized are that fish-eating does not necessarily 
cause fishy flavor, and that the latter does exist in individual birds that in 
all probability have not acquired it by eating fish. In the light of the 
evidence the writer holds neither of these points is subject to dispute.— 
W. L. McATEE. 


Egrets (Herodias egretta) in Northern New Jersey.— On August 4, 
1918, two Egrets (Herodias egretta) were seen by the writer at a small 


a 


102 General Notes. Kae 


artificial lake near Branchville, New Jersey. These, together with the three 
that stayed several weeks during late summer and early autumn of 1916 
in the vicinity of Van Cortlandt Park, New York City (Chubb, 8S. H., Auk, 
Oct., 1916, p. 483), one of which returned in the summer of 1917 to the 
same place (Rogers, Charles H., Bird-Lore, Sept.—Oct., 1917, p. 276), the 
one reported from Setauket, L. I., in the summer of 1916 (Nichols, Murphy, 
and Griscom, Auk, Oct., 1917, p. 446), and other recent records, would 
seem to indicate that the laws for the protection of this beautiful bird are 
bearing fruit.— G. CLypr FisHpr, American Museum of Natural History, 
New York City. 


Brooding Habit of the American Coot.— Two nests of the American 
Coot (Fulica americana) were hatched in the North American waterfowl 
lake in the National Zoological Park during the summer of 1918, and one 
curious habit of the bird, which I do not recall having seen noted, attracted 
my attention. Until the young birds are about twenty days old, almost 
as large as small quails, and have lost the reddish markings on the head, 
they return to the nest each evening and are brooded by a parent bird, 
presumably the female. I had never supposed before that these birds 
returned to the nest once the young had left it, almost immediately after 
they were hatched. In one case the nest was placed on the dry ground, 
under the overhanging branches of a low tree, about two feet from the bank, 
and in an excellent position for observation from the shore. I repeatedly 
saw the Coots between sundown and dark, one parent on the nest, the young 
under her wings or nestling about her after the manner of the domestic 
fowl. The other parent at these times patrolled the nearby shore and 
savagely attacked any ducks that wandered into the immediate vicinity. 
—N. Houuister, Washington, D. C. 


Stilt Sandpiper (Micropalama himantopus) in Wyoming.— The 
occurrence of the Stilt Sandpiper (Micropalama himantopus) in Wyoming’ 
seems to be rare enough to render it advisable to place on record the exist- 
ence of four specimens even if the records are decidedly old. In recently 
working over the series of this species contained in the collection of the 
United States National Museum, I found that four specimens, all males, 
were secured at Fort Laramie, Laramie County, Wyoming, May 15, 1875, 
by Dr. J.S. Newberry. Of these, Number 69918 was sent to Mr. E. E. T. 
Seton. The existence of these birds has evidently been unknown to 
Wyoming ornithologists as neither Knight (Birds of Wyoming, 1902, Bull. 
55, Univ. of Wyoming, p. 47) nor Grave and Walker (Birds of Wyoming, 
1913, Univ. of Wyoming, p. 35) make any reference to them.— B. H. 
Swates, U.S. National Museum, Washington, D. C. 


Notes on Migratory Anatine and Limicole from Western New 
York.— Realizing that most ornithologists are interested in obtaining 


pee a General Notes. 103 


data regarding the effects of the present ban on spring shooting, the writer 
has decided to place on record a series of observations made during the 
past two seasons in the township of Hamburg. The species noted were all 
seen on the wet meadows which lie between the highway and Lake Erie, 
directly north of the village of Woodlawn. The area, according to the 
map, is about a quarter of a mile wide and half a mile deep, and is the prop- 
erty of the Lackawanna Steel Company, whose immense plant is situated 
only a short distance away to the north. Interurban cars pass to and fro 
at frequent intervals on the tracks along the highway, and the highway 
itself carries a heavy traffic. Moreover, a railroad track runs along the 
north and west sides of the region, and here a switch engine is almost con- 
tinually at work. 

Mr. James Savage of Buffalo, a well-known western New York observer, 
was the first to discover that the meadows were used as feeding grounds by 
migratory water fowl and shore birds. On Sunday, May 13, 1917, he was 
returning by automobile to his home in the city after an early morning 
excursion in the woods of East Hamburg with the writer. As he stopped 
his car on the turnpike to scan the flooded fields, he was very much sur- 
prised to note two beautiful Mallard drakes and a duck, and also sixteen 
pairs of Pintails. It was clearly evident that the latter species had already 
mated, for the birds were feeding or resting two and two. The individuals 
of both species had probably been on the meadows for some time, as no 
attention was paid to passing traffic or to the switch engine working on 
the lake side of them. Four Greater Yellow-legs, two Lesser Yellow- 
legs, and one Pectoral Sandpiper were also seen, besides some smaller 
species which could not be identified on account of the great distance, 
as Mr. Savage made all of the observations without getting out of his 
automobile. 

The writer was unable to visit the locality until the following Saturday, 
May 19. There were only two pairs of Pintails left at that time; these 
were very tame and permitted him to approach within about thirty feet 
before they finally flew off toward Lake Erie. Although the Mallards and 
Yellow-legs were not found, two Pectoral Sandpipers, four Red-backed 
Sandpipers and four Semipalmated Plovers were noted near the highway. 
The occurrence of Pelidna alpina sakhalina at this season is somewhat 
noteworthy, as spring records for western New York are scarce. Two of 
the specimens were in full plumage and showed the characteristic red backs 
and black bellies; the slightly curved bills of all four were easily visible. 
The Red-backs were especially sluggish; they waded slowly around and 
leisurely probed for food, allowing one to approach within fifteen or twenty 
feet. 

During the following spring four visits were paid to the area; these were 
begun in late April in order to list some of the earlier Anatinee. On April 
21, 1918, there were feeding on the meadows one pair of Blue-winged Teals, 
one Pintail drake, and.a single Coot. On April 22, however, the number 


[yan 


104 General Notes. 
of birds had greatly increased. A pair of Baldpates and a female Shoveller 
had appeared; there were now two pairs of Blue-winged Teals, and no less 
than forty Pintails, the males and females occurring in about equal numbers; 
the Coot was also noted. 

On April 25 the number of Baldpates had increased to eight, and one 
small flock of eight Green-winged Teals was flushed near the railroad track. 
The two pairs of Blue-winged Teals and the female Shoveller were again 
found; twenty pairs of Pintails were noted, and the number of Coots had 
increased to three. On Sunday, May 5, a final visit was paid to the area, 
and twenty pairs of Pintails were noted; the remaining birds had evidently 
passed on. 

Inasmuch as the birds were easily observable from the highway, many 
persons in this vicinity have commented both upon their numbers and their 
tameness. The Pintail appeared to be the most unsuspicious species, and 
the Green-winged Teal the most wary; the Baldpate, Blue-winged Teal 
and Shoveller were somewhat more difficult to observe than the Pintail, 
probably because they were usually feeding among the grasses. In no 
case, however, was it necessary to guard against the danger of exposing 
one’s self in order to make an identification; apparently none of the Ana- 
tine paid any attention to the observer, providing, of course, he did not 
get too near them. Most of the ducks, and especially the Pintails, seemed 
somewhat stupid, as though their excess vitality had been entirely used up 
by a series of hard flights or an exceptionally severe winter. Instead 
of their being continually on the alert for danger, they fed or rested 
leisurely, apparently quite oblivious of their somewhat unfavorable 
environment. 

Although numbers of foreign laborers live near the region, no attempts 
were made to molest the birds, probably on account of the Lackawanna 
policemen who regularly patrol the outskirts of the area. It might be 
added that the Coots recorded here are the first the writer has ever seen at 
this season in this vicinity; they are included because of this fact and also 
because they were on the meadows with the Anatine.— Tuomas L. 
Bourne, Hamburg, N. Y. 


Spring Shore-birds in Connecticut.— An unusually heavy flight of 
shore-birds appeared in Connecticut in the spring of 1918. Not only 
were the common spring species in unusually large numbers, but a number 
of species usually rare at this season appeared. The main part of the 
flight as I observed it at Norwalk was between May 25 and June 1. The 
following species, rare or unusual at this season, were recorded. 

Macrorhamphus griseus griseus. Dowircurr.— Four of these 
birds were observed clearly on May 25. They were seen from a distance of 
about 150 feet, in a very clear light, and with seven diameter binoculars. 
On May 27 more birds believed to be this species were seen, but on account 
of fog nothing but their outlines was visible. On May 28 several more 


coo General Notes. 105 


were again certainly seen. This species has not been previously recorded 
from Connecticut in spring. 

Tringa canutus. Knor.— Two birds of this species were seen May 
25 in company with the Dowitchers seen on that date. They were ob- 
served clearly and were in the beautiful rosy-breasted and gray-backed 
spring plumage. This species has been recorded but once previously in 
spring from Connecticut (Gabrielson, Auk XXXIV, 462-3) and then from 
nearly the same locality as this record. 

Totanus flavipes. YELLOwLEGS.— Two birds of this species were 
observed at Norwalk, May 11. They were in company with the larger 
species, so that comparisons in size were easily made to identify them. 
There are but two previous spring records from Connecticut. 

Squatarola squatarola. BuLAck-BELLIED PLover.— This species was 
first noted on May 18, and was abundant from May 25 to June 1. During 
that time a good many in apparently full adult plumage were noted. 

Arenaria interpres morinella. Ruppy TurNnstone.— This species 
was very abundant from May 25 until June 1, flocks numbering from a 
dozen to fifty or more being seen. In fact, this species, usually rare in 
spring, was equally abundant with such common species as the Least 
Sandpiper and Semipalmated Plover— Arretas A. SaunpErs, Norwalk, 
Conn. 


Killdeer (Oxyechus vociferus) Nesting in West Haven, Conn.— For 
the past two seasons word has been sent to me that Snipe were nesting 
on a certain farm near West Haven, but I did not pay any attention to it, 
as I at once théught they were Spotted Sandpipers. 

About the middle of June of the past season a farmer said to me that 
there was a Snipe’s nest in one of his corn fields, and that it contained four 
eggs. I at once questioned him in regard to the size of the birds and, he 
said they were as big as Robins, and that they had black collars on their 
necks. 

On July 7 I paid a visit to the farm and as I was passing a pasture lot 
I heard the call of a Killdeer and looking over the lot I saw a pair of the 
birds. 

When I reached the house the man took me into a corn field back of the 
barn, and, there in the center of the field was the nest with three eggs, one 
having been broken accidentally while cultivating. The nest was simply a 
depression in the ground with a few small pebbles on which the eggs lay. 
The old bird made her appearance and moved about the field, dragging her 
wing and feigning lameness. 

The eggs at this date were heavily incubated so I took two exposures of 
the nest and left it hoping they would return in 1919 as the farmer said 
they had nested on his place for three years. A few days later I had an 
interview with the son of a farmer who had previously told me about 
Snipe nesting on his place, and, he said that they had nested there this 


106 General Notes. on 


Jan. 


season and in the season of 1917, while in the spring of 1916, sixteen Kill- 
deers were on his place, but a pair of bird dogs from a nearby house were 
continually hunting them so that only two pairs remained to nest. 

This is the first time I ever knew of Killdeers nesting in West Haven.— 
Netson E. Witmot, West Haven, Conn. 


Mourning Doves Sharing a Robin Roost.— On the evening of 
September 10, 1918, shortly after sunset in a country place outside of St. 
Louis, I saw fourteen Mourning Doves (Zenaidura macroura carolinensis) 
flying low through the gathering dusk. Others followed along the same 
course in small groups or singly, so that I was convinced that there was a 
general movement toward a roosting place. The next evening I posted 
myself near the point where the birds had been observed the night before, 
and discovered that several hundred Doves were going for the night to a 
piece of low ground only a few rods away. At the same time many Robins 
were also noted dropping into the same tangle in the manner characteristic 
of this species when flying to a ‘“‘ roost.’’ For several evenings a count was 
made of both species as they came to the roost. On September 14, three 
observers at different points counted five hundred and twenty-five Robins 
and four hundred and ninety-seven Doves. On September 28 only fifty 
Doves were noted, and on October 10, none. 

The thicket in which both species roosted covered several acres and was 
made up of wild plum, wild crab, small oaks and elms, many of which were 
draped with wild grape vines. Through a part of the thicket ran a piece 
of low ground in which grew taller elms, willows and buttonwood. The 
thicket was surrounded on all sides by open fields. 

The Doves came chiefly to the northwest corner of the thicket, the Robins 
chiefly to the north and east sides, but a few individuals of each species 
came along the route used chiefly by the other. A possible explanation of 
the marked difference in routes lies in the fact that the region to the north- 
west, from which the Doves apparently came, contained large corn and 
wheat fields and had fewer trees, while that to the north and east, from 
which the Robins came, included more small yards and groves of trees. 

The first Doves usually appeared later than the first Robins, and their 
whole flight was spread over a shorter period of time. Many individuals 
- came singly, but loose flocks of as many as thirty-four were noted. They 
never flew as high as the Robins that came in early, but no lower than the 
Robins that came late, when it was getting dark. Like the Robins, they 
occasionally lit on telephone wires before going into the thicket. To the 
northwest, about a quarter of a mile away, were two small cattle ponds; 
here, one evening, I observed Doves stopping to drink, apparently on their 
way to the roost. 

The Doves, unlike the Robins, were invariably silent on their way to the 
roost and after entering it. The Robins very often gave their sibilant note 
when flying over, and in the roost kept up a considerable interchange of 


Beato ei General Notes. LOT 


“ip” notes. For an evening or two a peculiar note, which might be 
described as a cross between a purring and a mewing note, coming from 
many points in the thicket, puzzled me until I discovered that it proceeded 
from Brown Thrashers. There must have been very many of these birds 
scattered in all parts of the thicket, but I never saw any fly in and con- 
clude, therefore, that they remained in the thicket during the day. 

In looking up the literature on the Mourning Dove, I find that very 
little has been published on the roosting habit above described. Neither 
Wilson, Coues nor Bendire mentions it. Audubon has the following state- 
ment, which is copied by Nuttall and Baird, Brewer and Ridgway: 

“ The roosting places which the Carolina Turtles prefer are among the 
long grasses found growing in abandoned fields, at the foot of dry stalks 
of maize, or on the edges of meadows, although they occasionally resort 
to the dead foliage of trees, as well as that of different species of evergreens. 
But in all these places they rise and fly at the approach of man, however 


dark the night may be, which proves that the power of sight which they 


possess is very great. They seldom place themselves very near each other 
when roosting on the ground, but sometimes the individuals of a flock 
appear diffused pretty equally over a whole field. In this particular they 
greatly differ from our Common Wild Pigeon, which settles in compact 
masses on the limbs of trees during the night. The Doves, however, 
like the Pigeons, are fond of returning to the same roosting grounds from 
considerable distances. A few individuals sometimes mix with the Wild 
Pigeons, as do the latter with the Doves.” 

S. N. Rhoads mentions “ several dozen Doves” roosting with Robins, 
near Haddonfield, N. J. (Cassinia, 1913) but I have found only one writer 
who seems to have observed them roosting in the same manner and abun- 
dance that I have above described. In ‘The Auk,’ (Vol. 22, p. 150) 
Stockard in an article on the Nesting Habits of Mississippi Birds, writes 
as follows: 

“This species is extremely common and in fall and winter they are seen 
collecting in large numbers. Late in summer they begin roosting in. com- 
pany and many hundred come about sunset to their chosen places for the 
night. During this season they are shot in large numbers while flying to 
the hedge or small wood that has been selected as a roosting place.” 

It seems from the dearth of published material on the roosting of the 
Mourning Dove, as if the habit could by no means be as universal as in the 
case of the Robin. It would be interesting, however, to hear from other 
observers, and particularly to get further data on the time of year during 
which Doves roost in common. Is it only after the young are fledged, or 
do the males roost while the young are being reared? Were the large 
numbers in the St. Louis roost due to the presence of migrants? Is the 
roosting habit continued further south by wintering birds? How often 
do Doves share a roost with Robins? When roosting in thickets, do the 
Doves spend the night on the trees, or on the ground in the manner de- 
scribed by Audubon?— Raupn HorrMann, St. Louis, Mo. 


d 


108 General Notes. [aa 


Jan. 


Duck Hawks Wintering in the Center of Philadelphia.— On 
January 29, 1918, two Duck Hawks (Falco peregrinus anatum) were ob- 
served circling about the tower of the Philadelphia city hall (517 feet in 
height) situated in the midst of the business center of the city. My office 
window on the sixteenth floor of the Widener Building about opposite to 
the tower clock (361 feet from the ground) gave me an excellent opportunity 
to observe them. How long they had been present before my attention 
was attracted to them I cannot say. They undoubtedly took up winter 
quarters on the tower on account of the large number of pigeons which 
live about the building and upon which they fed. The exceptionally cold 
winter also had its effect in reducing their normal food supply and forcing 
them in from wilder regions. 

When first observed they were engaged in aerial evolutions apparently 
purely for the joy of flying, now rapidly, now slowly, now chasing one 
another and then a rapid swoop to one of the tower ledges, the leading bird 
alighting and the other wheeling about the tower or out. into mid-air. 
These evolutions continued until dusk. 

During these flights they seemed to pay no attention whatever to the 
many pigeons which darted here and there at terrific speed and in great 
confusion. 

On three different occasions, however, hawks were observed eating a 
pigeon on the lower ledge at the base of the clock, apparently standing on 
it with both feet and tearing off the feathers which floated away on the air. 
This seemed to be a regular preliminary to the beginning of each meal. 
On one occasion a hawk flew across directly in front of the window from 
which my observations were made carrying a large pigeon in its talons. 
Its flight was perceptibly slow and labored as compared with its usual 
grace and agility. On February 5 a hawk flew to the northeast tower 
ledge with a pigeon which it proceeded to devour; hitherto the southeast 
ledge had always been the place to which the quarry was carried. During 
the early afternoon both hawks were noticed in flight about the tower 
when they suddenly dived downward at terrific speed almost to the house- 
tops and began a rapid darting flight among the chimneys, travelling 
northeast over the city apparently on a pigeon hunt. 

Often they were seen to fly directly toward one another with a very rapid 
flapping of the wings but in a labored manner so that they made very slow 
progress, and then when almost breast to breast they would turn suddenly 
and dive down vertically. On February 6 I saw a hawk dive vertically from 
the clock ledge in pursuit of a pigeon which passed on the wing at least 300 
feet below but failed to secure it. Usually these failures seemed to be due 
to the fact that two or more pigeons were pursued in an apparently hap- 
hazard manner instead of the more logical method of singling out one bird. 
When pursued en masse the pigeons invariably separated, scattering in all 
directions and leaving the pursuer in a rather confused and puzzled condi- 
tion and in doubt as to which individual to attack, resulting in his return. 


Vol. NT General Notes. 109 


to mid-air unsuccessful. The birds remained about the tower until the 
first week of March, when I suppose they departed for the north— DELos 
E. Cuntver, Addingham, Pa. 


A Note of the Long-eared Owl (Asio wilsonianus).— On the evening 
of August 3, 1918, near the village of Branchville in northern New Jersey, 
some friends appealed to me to identify a supposed bird-note which for 
several nights previous had been heard in a grove back of the hotel, “ The 
Pines.”” The note had always been heard after dark, and with such 
regularity and frequency ‘that the diurnal birds were eliminated. The 
descriptions of this voice of the night varied widely. One said it resembled 
the mew of a cat, another likened it to the noise of a squeaking pulley, 
while other comparisons were less suggestive. But after hearing it, I 
would describe the note as a softly whistled whee-you, the two syllables 
slurred together. Although scarcely as long as the ordinary note of the 
Pheebe, in quality it suggested that of the Screech Owl — being, however, 
much shorter and more frequently uttered than the latter. I now suspected 
that it was an owl, but felt sure that it could not be a Screech Owl, a Barred 
Owl, or a Great Horned Owl, for I am familiar with the notes of these. 
So, after securing an electric flash-lamp and while holding it over my head, 
I tried to get as close as I could to the bird, to see it if possible. At least 
I thought I might ‘shine its eyes” as several years ago I had done in 
Florida with the Chuck-Will’s-Widow. The wood was composed partly 
of native white pines and hemlocks with an undergrowth of sprouts of 
American yew. I first located the bird in a tall hemlock, but I could not 
see it in the dense foliage. In searching for it with my bright light, | 
flushed it several times, but I could never hear it fly from one tree to 
another. Its silent flight strengthened my suspicion that it was an owl, 
and its habitat made me think it was a Long-eared Owl. Although I 
failed to see the bird that night, the next morning, August 4, I walked out 
into the grove, and under one of the hemlocks in which I had first heard the 
note the night before, I noted some droppings and also a few owl pellets. 
Upon looking up into the’ tree, I was surprised to see a Long-eared Owl 
with its ear-tufts elevated, gazing down at me. It was perched upon a 
branch not more than twenty feet up, and remained there until I had 
examined it to my entire satisfaction and then walked away and left it. 
While the evidence is circumstantial, it seems to me pretty sure that the 
unknown note came from this bird or one of the same species. By a little 
further search in the trees near by, a second bird was located. 

Since I have never read a description which I am sure applies to this 
note of the Long-eared Owl, I though it worth recording.— G. CLYDE 
Fisner, American Museum of Natural History, New York City. 


The Short-eared Owl in Massachusetts in Summer.— As the 
present status of the Short-eared Owl (Asio flammeus) as a breeding bird 


110 General Notes. Foe 


Jan. 


in Massachusetts seems to be somewhat doubtful, it may be worth while to 
record the fact that I saw one at Wauwinet on the island of Nantucket, 
August 6 and 7, 1918. The species formerly bred on Muskeget Island 
at the opposite end of Nantucket, where the killing of a family of six in 
order to protect the Tern colony from their depredations led to a discussion 
as to the probability that they belonged to an undescribed insular race 
(see Auk, 1897, 388; 1898, 75-77, 210-213). Mr. George H. Mackay 
writes me that he has been well satisfied that in the past the species ‘‘ bred 
quite regularly (say one or two pairs) in the vicinity of Siasconset on 
Nantucket and more rarely on Muskeget Island.’ Siasconset is a little 
south of Wauwinet, on the eastern shore of the island.— Francis H. 
ALLEN, West Roxbury, Mass. 


On Brotogeris ferrugineifrons Lawrence.— In ‘ The Ibis’ for 1880: 
(page 238) Mr. George N. Lawrence described a new Parakeet from 
Bogota, Colombia, under the name of Brotogerys ferrugineifrons. This is 
evidently a very rare bird in collections. In fact, so far as I know, the 
type, which is now in the American Museum of Natural History (No. 
44744), is the only known specimen. 

This species is well marked and can be confused with no other. It does 
not, however, belong to the genus Brotogeris, but to Bolborhynchus. This 
is shown by the form of the bill and by the presence of the oil-gland which 
bears a large tuft. In Brotogeris the oil-gland is wholly absent. 

Bolborhynchus ferrugineifrons is most nearly allied to B. andicola, with 
which it agrees in its uniform green plumage, the tail two-thirds as long as 
the wing, and the tenth primary shorter than the ninth. It differs from 
that species, as well as from B. lineola, in its decidedly greater size, darker 
green coloration, and in the rusty forehead and face. 

The skin is not of native Bogota’ make, and the name “ Wallace ” on 
Lawrence’s label indicates that the specimen was obtained from the New 
York taxidermist, John Wallace. The measurements, in millimeters, of 
the type specimen are as follows: Wings, 116 and 118; tail, 77.5; culmen, 
14; tarsus, 15. The tail is graduated for 24 mm.— W. DEW. MILLER, 
American Museum of Natural History, New York City. 


Arctic Three-toed Woodpecker (Picoides arcticus) at Belmont, 
Mass.— I am able to furnish one more record of this species rare in east- 
ern Massachusetts. On October 17, 1918, in a ramble over the Belmont 
Hill pasture and wooded lands, I came upon an adult male bird working 
assiduously for grubs upon a dead pitch pine tree. The yellow crown was 
a conspicuous feature. He allowed as near an approach as fifty feet and 
permitted me an exhaustive survey of him. After a time he dropped to a 
prostrate trunk of pitch pine close by and was then but thirty-five feet 
from the rock on which I had seated myself, thus indicating an absence of 
shyness. 


Vol. | General Notes. iol 


My only earlier record of an Arctic Three-toed Woodpecker in this 
state was of an adult male bird also, seen in Pine Banks Park, Malden- 
Melrose, on October 22, 1904,! and recorded there from time to time 
through the season up to April 21, 1905, thereby completing a six months’ 
residence. 

_ On my next trip over the Belmont lands on November 2 I did not find 
this Woodpecker.— Horace W. Wriaut, Boston, Mass. 


The Song of the Blue Jay.— Possibly many who read the above title 
will think that they glimpse in it a lurking sarcasm, as they recall the notes 
which usually announce the presence of the “ screaming jay,” for compara- 
tively few bird students or writers upon bird song seem to be aware of the 
Blue Jay’s best musical performance. 

Blue Jays are numerous in Florida and during my last two winters there 
I met a number of bird students in different localities who spoke to me of 
the Blue Jay song to which I refer, describing it as sweet, tender and quite 
lovely; delivered, they asserted, with a retirmg modesty not perceptible 
in the Blue Jay’s deportment on other occasions. 

One friend, who is a keen observer of birds and their music, told me that 
when she spoke to him, some years ago, about this particular melody he 
said he had never heard any such song from the Blue Jay, but at a more 
recent period when meeting her again he referred to the song in question 
and said, ‘‘ I have heard it since talking with you.” 

Though these reports occasionally came to me I did not hear the Blue 
Jay sing until last July in Winter Park, Florida. While a friend and I 
were seated near a window, dining, we heard a song unlike that of any of 
the common birds with which we were familiar; it was not loud nor ringing, 
nor at all like whistling, but the notes were formed into a sweet and some- 
what complex bird melody. All paused to listen and it required from us 
only a lifting of the eyes to discover the singer, a Blue Jay, perching out- 
side of the window on the lowest branch of a pine tree. 

A search through books on birds and their notes yielded interesting 
quotations from the following authors: — in his ‘Fieldbook of Wild Birds 
and their Music,’ Mr. F. Schuyler Mathews says of the Blue Jay, “‘ He 
attempts nothing that we can call a song.”’ In the ‘ Color Key to North 
American Birds’ by Dr. Frank M. Chapman and Chester A. Reed, turning 
to the description of the Blue Jay we read, ‘“‘ Notes: varied; commonly a 
loud harsh jay, jay; often whistling calls and imitations of the notes of 
other birds, particularly of common hawks.” There is a similar estimate 
of the Blue Jay’s musical powers in Chester A. Reed’s “ Bird Guide.’’ 

From Mabel Osgood Wright we have: — “ A whistling bell-note in the 
breeding season; the usual cry a screaming jay, jay, jay.” Nor do Brad- 
ford Torrey, Florence Merriam Bailey, Simeon Pease Cheney, and many 
others allude to a song from the Blue Jay. 


1 Auk, vol. XXII, Jan. 1905, p. 80. 


i 


2 General Notes. Re 


Jan. 


However, in the ‘ History of North American Birds,’ (Vol. II) by Baird, 
Brewer and Ridgway, we read: ‘‘ The Blue Jay is conspicuous as a musi- 
cian. He exhibits a variety in his notes and occasionally a beauty and a 
harmony in his song for which few give him credit.” Although I am quite 
confident that Mr. John Burroughs does not mention this Blue Jay song in 
his earlier books, in ‘The Ways of Nature’ he quotes from Mr. Leander 
Keyser ‘the sweet gurgling roulade of the wild jays” ; and Wilson 
alludes to the Blue Jay’s occasional warbling with all the softness of tone 
of a bluebird. Mr. Nehrling also speaks of the Blue Jay melody in his 
‘ Birds of Song and Beauty,’ and Mrs. Olive Thorne Miller says in writing 
about a pet Blue Jay, “ and occasionally uttering a sweet though not loud 
song.’’ A bird student in central Georgia claims to have heard this Blue 
Jay music very often, quite early in the morning. 

Do the Blue Jay’s crude efforts at mimicry indicate a craving for more 
power in the realm of sound and melody, and is Nature evolving an 
original song for him through desire, or are we becoming aware that a bird 
singer has been modestly hiding his talent throughout the centuries behind 
a camouflage of swagger airs and teasing screams, or at best poorly executed 
mocking notes and a few whistles? — IsaneL Goopuur, Washington, D. C. 


The Aesthetic Sense in Birds as illustrated by the Crow.— The 
Crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos brachyrhynchos) is not generally recognized 
as a songster, but it has one note which has always seemed to me to serve 
for a love-song since it is heard chiefly in the spring and is delivered in a 
different fashion from the various caws in the bird’s repertoire. This is 
the hoarse rattle which is familiar to all of us. It is uttered with the’ bill 
pointed vertically downward and opened rather wide. It is accompanied 
by no marked movement of the head and whole body as when the caws 
are delivered, but the note seems to issue of itself, as it were, being very 
suggestive of eructation. There is, however, an accompanying display of 
wings opened slightly at the bend and shoulder feathers ruffled such as is 
common in the courtship of birds. This love-song doubtless serves its 
purpose in the reproductive cycle, and it is conceivable that it may give 
pleasure to the singer’s mate and to the singer himself, but on the other 
hand it would be hard to prove that it was anything more than a mere 
reflex, the mechanical performance of an automaton devoid of even the 
rudiments of esthetic sense. 

The Crow has another vocal accomplishment, however, of a radically 
different character and of a much higher order, one which, it seems to me, 
can be accounted for only by postulating a well-developed esthetic sense. 
There is no melody in his vocal utterances and, of course, no harmony, 
but in time rhythm, he is a master. The only other bird that occurs to 
me as conspicuous for rhythm with or without melody is the Barred Owl, 
and his four-footed line of blank verse with the curious cesural pause in 
the middle is so unvarying that it may well be purely mechanical, whereas 
the Crow’s is remarkable for its variety. 


Vol. | General Notes. 113 


Every one has noticed how commonly the Crow caws in triplets — caw, 
caw, caw. Several years ago I found that a Crow near my house had a 
habit of giving four short caws in groups of two — caw-caw, caw-caw — and 
before long I discovered that other Crows in various localities many miles 
apart cawed in the same way. I came to call this, after the fashion of the 
fire-alarm, the 22 call. My attention being directed to this habit, I learned 
that this was by no means the only number in the Crows’ fire-alarm system. 
My notes for August 19, 1915, read as follows: ‘‘ Heard a Crow near the 
house this morning that cawed the number 21 (caw caw (rest) caw) a large 
number of times in succession — perhaps twenty or twenty-five times. 
The caws were short. This was followed by five short caws delivered two 
or three times, then two or three groups of three long caws, two or three 
groups of four long caws, and the 22 call delivered a few times. (I am not 
sure that I remember these various calls in the exact order.)’’ And for 
October 22, 1916: ‘‘ A Crow near our house this morning gave over and 
over again many times a group of caws like the number 211 on the fire- 
alarm, occupying two or three seconds. The time was so regular that I 
could detect no variation. The length of the several notes was uniform, 
I think, and so were the pitch and the quality, the rhythm being all that 
differentiated the phrase from other performances of the Crow.” And for 
March 14, 1917: ‘A Crow this morning cawed 211 several times very 
rapidly; i. e., each phrase was rapidly delivered.” 

Now, intelligent as the Crow is reputed to be, I do not believe that he 
has invented a Morse code of signals to convey information to his com- 
panions. Nor, on the other hand, does it seem reasonable to suppose that 
these performances are purely mechanical and involuntary. How can 
we escape the belief that the bird takes a delight, not only in the exercise 
of his vocal organs but also in the rhythm and the variety of his utterances? 
Is he not, in a limited way, a true artist, a composer as well as a performer? 
I ask it in all seriousness. 

I have long believed with Mr. Henry Oldys that birds take an esthetic 
pleasure in their own songs, and the case of the Crow seems to support 
this view so strongly that I have ventured to. call attention to it. In 
support of the mechanistic view of bird-song the case of birds with cracked 
voices and similar imperfections has been cited. It is pointed out that 
such birds sing as vociferously as the good singers of their respective 
species, and it is argued that if they possessed any wsthetic sense shame 
would keep them silent. This argument would carry more weight with 
me if I had not heard so many shameless human singers, whistlers, and 
cornetists whose performances gave pleasure only to themselves and 


positive pain to most of their hearers! — Francis H. Auten, West Roxbury, 
Mass. 


Magpie (Pica pica hudsonia) in Northeastern Illinois.— The only 
actual capture of a Black-billed Magpie in Illinois that has come to my 


114 General Notes. ree 


notice, is an adult male in perfect plumage, which has recently been 
mounted by R. A. Turtle, the Chicago taxidermist. 

This specimen was taken November 10, 1918, by Mr. J. Cropley, who 
saw two strange birds in a ravine at Lake Forest, one of which seemed to 
be crippled. He caught it and kept it alive for two or three days, when it 
died. About half the upper mandible was missing, evidently from an old 
wound; its stomach was empty. 

Its mate flew off and was not seen again.— Henry K. Coatz, Highland 
Park, Illinois. 


Proper Name of the Tree Sparrow.— The correct name of the Tree 
Sparrow must still be determined. We are not specialists in the American 
avifauna but herewith adduce facts that Spizella monticola (Gmelin) can- 
not be maintained. In ‘The Austral Avian Record’ (Vol. ii, No. 2, 
p. 41, Nov. 19, 1915) we wrote as follows: “ Fringilla canadensis (Bod- - 
daert). This name, given on p. 13 to pl. 223 f. 2 was not admitted in the 
“Catalogue of Birds,’ and does not seem to have since been recognized. 
Consequently the name used for the bird there figured, viz., Spizella 
monticola Gmelin, still persists in the Amer. Ornith. Union Check-List 3rd 
edition p. 263, 1910. As Gmelin’s name (Syst. Nat., p. 912, 1789) is 
absolutely equivalent and later than Boddaert’s, the bird must be known 
as Spizella canadensis Boddezert.” 

Oberholser (Proc. Biol. Soe. Wash., Vol. 31, p. 98, June 29, 1918) rejects — 
Boddaert’s name, concluding that without doubt the figures and descrip- 
tion apply to Zonotrichia leucophrys but stating that Gmelin’s name is 
still correct for the Tree Sparrow. 

Gmelin cites Ist Passer canadensis Briss; 2 Soulciet Buff; 3 Moineau de 
Canada Buff.; 4 Mountain Finch Lath.; 5 Tree Finch, Arct. Zoél. The first 
three references are the basis of Boddaert’s name and must also be accepted 
as the foundation of Gmelin’s species so that when it is concluded that 
Boddaert’s name is inapplicable, so also must Gmelin’s be. There does not 
seem to be any word in Gmelin’s description controverting the above 
references, and Oberholser’s continued acceptance of Gmelin’s name is 
inexplicable. We do not question for a moment the accuracy of his de- 
termination of Boddaert’s species, but the conclusion is that the figures 
have never before been critically examined.— G. M. Matuews anp Tom 
IREDALE, England. 


The Rose-breasted Grosbeak in Connecticut in November.— On 
November 4, 1918, I observed a Rose-breasted Grosbeak (Zamelodia ludo- 
viciana) at Norwalk, Conn. The bird was in the plumage of an adult . 
female, and was so tame that it was observed clearly from a distance of less 
than ten feet. However it was at a time when I was not equipped for 
collecting, and in a place where collecting would have been impossible. 
There are two other November records of this species from Connecticut.— 
AreTas A. SaunpDERS, Norwalk, Conn. 


Vol. fae | General Notes. 115 


Zamelodia versus Hedymeles.— The generic name Zamelodia Coues 
has been, during recent years, in general use for our North American Rose- 
breasted and Black-headed Grosbeaks. This generic term was originally 
proposed by Dr. Elliott Coues (Bull. Nuttall Ornith. Club, V, No. 2, April, 
1880, p. 98) for Loxia ludoviciana Linneus and Guiraca melanocephala 
Swainson, because Hedymeles Cabanis (Mus. Hein., I, June, 1851, p. 152; 
type by subsequent designation |Gray, Cat. Gen. and Subgen. Birds Brit. 
Mus., 1855, p. 71], Lovxia ludovicianus Linnzeus) was supposedly invalidated 
by Hedymela Sundevall (Ofvers. Kongl. Vetensk.-Akad. Férhandl. Stock- 
holm, 1846 (1847, p. 225) for a genus of Muscicapide. Although Habia 
Reichenbach nee Blyth was for a considerable period used by American 
ornithologists for this group, Zamelodia was restored by Dr. Coues (The 
Auk, XIV, No. 1, January, 1897, pp. 39-42) when Habia was found to be 
preoccupied. The generic name Hedymeles Cabanis is not, however, 
according to either the International Code or to Canon XXX of the revised 
American Ornithologists’ Union Code of Nomenclature, to be rejected on 
account of Hedymela, since it is a word with a different classical termination 
other than grammatical gender. In fact, it is a case exactly parallel to 
that of Hydrobata and Hydrobates (cf. Hartert, Hand-List British Birds, 
1912, p. 149). It should, therefore, displace Zamelodia, and the two 
species of the group stand as 

Hedymeles ludovicianus (Linnzus). 
Hedymeles melanocephalus (Swainson). 


e 


Harry C. OBpERHOLSER, Washington, D. C. 


Rough-winged Swallow, Unusual Nesting Sites.— A number of 
years ago a concrete retaining wall was built along the bank of Grand 
River, midway between the top and bottom, to protect the street above 
from the annual spring slipping. Three-inch iron drainage pipes were 
placed at intervals of a few feet and these pipes projected some two or 
three feet out of the face of the wall. The Rough-winged Swallows used 
these pipes yearly as nesting sites, continuing the practice until the wall 
itself sipped into the river below. 

At least half a dozen pipes were occupied each year by the birds, although 
a few hundred feet up the river was a long extent of high shale bank with 
many cracks and fissures, the natural site of the species, and which is 
used at the present time as a nesting community tor a number of pairs. 
This is the only instance I have seen, nor have I yet found in print any 
record of the Rough-wing departing from its usual nesting custom.— HE. A. 
DcourrLe, Painesville, Ohio. 


Late Nesting of the Red-eyed Vireo in Detroit, Mich.— While 
hunting birds, with field glasses, on Belle Isle on the morning of September 
25, I was startled by the appearance of a Red-eyed Vireo followed closely 
by a young bird. The youngster flipped its wings and begged persistently 


116 General Notes. Fee 


Jan. 


for food and the parent bird after finding a hairy worm would slap it about 
until it was shorn of its spines when it would thrust it down the yawning 
maw of the young beggar apparently without appeasing its hunger in the 
least as it would immediately demand more. The two were wandering 
about in short second growth saplings and I had ample opportunity to 
watch them without the aid of my glasses for some little time as they were 
within easy vision. There was no possible question of their identity. Has 
any one a later date for the nesting of this well-known bird?— Erta 8. 
Wiuson Detroit, Mich. 


Local Decrease of Warblers in 1917.— In the spring of 1917 very wet 
weather with cold spells prevailed through the western peninsula of On- 
tario and a good deal of the country to the north of it, the result being that 
many of the small birds failed to raise the usual number of young, and when 
the time for the autumn migrations arrived the birds usually seen in large 
numbers did not appear, or were in such small numbers as to be negligible. 

Opposite my house in the city of London les a small park of about three 
acres planted with the usual variety of shade trees, and in that park it is 
a usual thing to see in the autumn migrations quite large numbers of 
warblers and the species that usually associate with them, but in the 
autumn of 1917, the total number of warblers seen by all the observers who 
frequent the park, was not half a dozen, while in previous years it was a 
frequent thing to find half a dozen species in the course of a fifteen minutes’ 
hunt. 

So far as I could learn conditions throughout the western peninsula of 
Ontario were nearly uniform. At Point Pelee warblers were in extremely 
small numbers and every observer with whom I spoke or corresponded 
remarked on the great scarcity of these birds in that season. Fortunately, 
this state of affairs does not seem to have been universal and from many 
parts of the continent come different reports. The present breeding of 
1918 was not altogether favorable and the number of migrating birds up 
to the time of writing (September 13), is small though there are more than 
were noted the prevous year.— W. E. SaunprErs, London, Ont. 


The Name “ erythrogaster,’ and Others.— A nomenclatural, or rather 
etymological, question has recently been raised which illustrates how great 
a tempest in a teapot may be stirred up over a point already settled by 
existing rules of nomenclature, and a brief statement of the case seems 
desirable. 

In a paper on ‘‘ The Birds of the Anamba Islands ”’ (U. 8. Nat. Mus. 
Bull. 98, p. 31, 1917) Dr. H. C. Oberholser designates the American Barn 
Swallow as Hirundo rustica erythrogastris, explaining in a foot-note that 
“the subspecific term erythrogaster as here used is a Latin adjective of the 
third declension and therefore has for its proper feminine nominative 
erythrogastris, not erythrogastra as commonly written.” 


oO ao | General Notes. 7 


In ‘The Condor,’ 1918, p. 92, Dr. Joseph Grinnell takes up the matter 
and among other things says: “In the spelling of the subspecific name 
of the American form however, I believe Oberholser to be wrong and 
erythrogaster should be the proper spelling, not erythrogastris. The term 
erythrogaster cannot be considered an adjective. It is a Greek noun re- 
taining its own gender and case when Latinized.” 

Dr. W. Stone (Auk, 1918, p. 491) contributes further discussion and 
says: — ‘‘ He [i. e. Grinnell] seems to be absolutely right and the action 
of the original A. O. U. Committee should be upheld.” 

The only wonder is that Dr. Oberholser should have disregarded the 
adopted rules of nomenclature and declared the word to be an adjective. 
Canon VIII of the A. O. U. Code long ago defined the sort of words that 
may be used as specifie or subspecifie names and more recently the Inter- 
national Rules of Zodlogical Nomenclature, Article 14, defined them still 
more explicitly as; (a) adjectives which must agree grammatically with 
the generic name, (b) substantives in the nominative in apposition with the 
generic name, and (c) substantives in the genitive. 

Section (b) is applicable to this case for not only Boddaert, who in 1783 
used Hirundo erythrogaster, but many other early writers on zodlogy 
evidently considered the word erythrogaster as a noun Latinized from the 


Greek after compounding the adjective épvpds (erythros, red) with the 


noun yaorsp (gaster, the belly). Therefore its ending should remain un- 
changed no matter whether the genus be masculine, feminine or neuter, 
and as long as we have nomenclatural rules designed for the purpose of 
settling such questions, nothing whatever is gained by breaking away 
from them, and consequently the endings -tra and -tris are quite superfluous 
attempts to convert a noun into an adjective. 

Unless existing rules are cancelled or considerably modified we are at 
the mercy of all etymological atrocities and must accept the burden of 
inconsistencies that confront us at every turn. If an author has obviously 
constructed a noun we may not turn it into an adjective, however con- 
venient such procedure might be; and more than this I believe that Latin 
grammar and the law of priority must necessarily prevail in cases of doubt. 

The converse of this is true and we may not turn an obvious adjective 
into a noun as Dr. Grinnell would do in the case of Guiraca cerulea salicaria 
(Condor, 1918, p. 92). By no wish of the deseriber can the good Latin, ° 
adjectival suffix -arius, convert salicarius (salix, salicis, the willow + -arius 
belonging to) into a noun! 

The termination -venter should, by analogy, be the ending for all com- 
pounds of this Latin noun and the endeavors to convert such nouns into 
non-classical or rather nomenclatural adjectives are responsible for the 
various endings with which we are troubled. There is now no way of 
securing uniformity except by a ruling of the International Zodlogical 
Commission. 

A great deal more might be said regarding many other nouns and ad- 


118 General Notes. as 


jectives that have been sadly distorted through ignorant or careless hand- 
ling, but for the present let it suffice to call attention to the above cases 
which are clearly defined and capable of definite settlement.— JoNATHAN 
Dwieut, New York City. 


Waterton on Bird Song.— When the October ‘ Auk’ reached me it so 
happened that I was reading Waterton’s ‘Essays’ (1838-1855). There I 
found in his essay on “The Wren, The Hedge Sparrow and The Robin” 
a passage which is peculiarly interesting in connection with Mr. Hawkins’ 
paper on bird song. It is this: “ When we are informed that incubation is 
the main inducement to melody in the feathered tribe, we have only to step 
out after sunrise into the surrounding evergreens, and there we are sure to 
hear either the wren, the hedge sparrow, or the robin, in fine song, although 
not a single twig has been laid, or a piece of moss produced in furtherance 
of a nest, wherein to raise their future young. Certainly, in this case, 
neither love nor warmth could have had any hand in tuning the winter 
lyre of these little sons of Orpheus.”— CorNnELIUS WEYGANDT, German- 
town, Philadelphia. 


Correction.— A regrettable error occurs in the first line of Mr. Arthur 
T. Wayne’s article in the October ‘ Auk.’ While his manuscript read: 
“‘ Since my ‘ Birds of South Carolina,’ ” etc., it appeared in print “ Since 
‘My Birds of South Carolina,’ ”’ etc. For this unfortunate misquotation 
of the title of his well known book Mr. Wayne is of course in no way 
responsible.— Eprror. 


Nn 


Vol. a | Recent Literature. 119 


RECENT LITERATURE. 


Beebe’s Monograph of the Pheasants.!— Birds, from their gorgeous 
plumage, pleasing song and varied habits, possess an interest quite apart 
from the purely technical consideration of their structure and systematic 
relationship, subjects which in the lower orders of the animal kingdom 
cover practically the whole range of possibility in their study; and orni- 
thology, fortunate in having such beings as its especial province, possesses 
in consequence a far broader literature than many of the other branches 
of zodlogical science can boast. 

From the earliest days bird study has attracted, in addition to the tech- 
nical ornithologist, men gifted with both literary and artistic talents, 
with the result that we are able to point with pride to a long series of 
splendid works of art and narratives of surpassing interest as a part of the 
literature of our favorite science. To those who have handled the great 
monographs of Gould, Elliot, Sharpe and others or the earlier classics of 
Catesby, Wilson and Audubon, there is the inevitable feeling that this 
phase of ornithological activity should not be allowed to perish, and hence 
we hail with especial delight any present-day contribution to this field. 

Probably no other work of this sort has been looked forward to with 
greater anticipation than Capt. William Beebe’s ‘Monograph of the 
Pheasants,’ the first volume of which is now before us, and to say that it 
fully meets our most sanguine expectations is but inadequate praise. A 
sumptuous royal quarto, 12x16 in., beautifully printed on special rag 
paper, with splendid colored plates by six of the leading bird artists of the 
world — reproduced with wonderful beauty and accuracy, photogravures 
of the haunts of the various species and a text of exceptionally high quality 
—all go to form a work of art and a literary production well worthy of 
the twentieth century. Beside the illustrations already referred to we 
must mention the colored plates which show the successive plumages, of 
one species in nearly every genus, from the natal down to the adult, and 
others depicting the eggs. 

Much as we are indebted to Capt. Beebe and his corps of artists, through 
whose ability and talents this splendid work has been produced, back of it 
all our thanks are due to the generosity of Col. Anthony R. Kuser, of 


1 A Monograph of the | Pheasants | By |William Beebe | Curator of Birds of the New York 
Zodlogical Park; Fellow of the New York Zodlogical | Society and Director of the Tropical 
Research Station in British Guiana; Fellow | of the American Ornithologists’ Union and of 
the New York Academy | of Sciences; Member of the British Ornithologists’ Union; | Cor- 
responding Member of the Zodlogical | Society of London, etc. | In four Volumes | Volume I 
Published under the auspices of the | New York Zodlogical Society by | Witherby & Co. 
326 High Holborn, London, England | 1918 | Royal Quarto (12 X 16 in.) pp. i-xlix — 
1-198, 19 colored plates, 16 photogravures and 5 maps. Edition limited to 600 copies; 
price of each volume $62.50. 


120 Recent Literature. [fue 


Bernardsville, N. J., one of the Board of Managers of the New York 
Zoological Society, who suggested the undertaking and who has liberally 
supported both the necessary explorations and the subsequent publica- 
tion, and his hope, as set forth in the preface by Dr. Henry Fairfield 
Osborn, of producing ‘fa work which, from the standpoint of truth, of 
beauty and of thoroughness, should be worthy of the important place 
which the pheasants occupy in the science of ornithology,’ has been 
abundantly realized. 

Many of the members of the American Ornithologists’ Union remember 
hearing Capt. Beebe discuss his proposed Asiatic journey for the study of 
pheasants, at the meeting in New York, in the autumn of 1909, and two 
years later, at the Philadelphia meeting, they enjoyed his splendid photo- 
graphs of the various countries through which he had travelled in the 
meantime — Ceylon, India, Burma, China, Japan, the Malay States, 
Borneo and Java — visiting the haunts of one or more species of each of 
the nineteen recognized genera of Pheasants. Now it is our privilege to 
share the knowledge that he has gained of these wonderful birds and to 
read and discuss the conclusions to which his studies of the group have led. 

The present volume, the first of four, comprises the Blood Partridges 
([thagenis) of which six species and two additional subspecies are recog- 
nized; the Tragopans (Tragopan) with five species and one subspecies; 
the Impeyan Pheasants (Lephophorus) and the Eared Pheasants (Crossop- 
tilon) each with three species. All of the species are figured in colors with 
the exception of two of the Blood Partridges which are very close to other 
figured forms. Under each genus there is a generic diagnosis with syno- 
nymy and a key to the species and subspecies, as well as a map showing 
their distribution. Under the species there is, whenever possible, an 
account of the bird from the author’s personal experience with it in the 
field, written in Capt. Beebe’s well known attractive style. This is fol- 
lowed by sections headed ‘General Distribution’; ‘General Account’ 
(of habits, ete.); ‘Early History’; ‘Captivity’ and ‘Detailed Description.’ 
Under one or other of these headings the author has collected all the 
available published information on the species, together with a vast amount 
of original matter derived not only from his explorations in the native 
haunts of the birds, but from his long experience with many of them in 
captivity and his studies of the material preserved in all the important 
museums of the world. The beautiful photogravures of the haunts of the 
various species, from photographs by the author, are so arranged as to 
exhibit on one plate a general view of the habitat, together with a near 
view showing the details of the environment. There is also an admirable 
device of printing on the thin interleaf of each plate a couple of terse 
paragraphs explaining just what it represents, calling attention to some 
peculiar pose or action of the bird, or some important feature of the land- 
scape, which adds greatly to the value of the illustration and to the reader’s 
appreciation of it. We do not mean to intimate that the plates do not 


pox Recent Literature. 121 


“speak for themselves,”’ for they do to a remarkable degree; but there are 
in all pictures features quite apart from the artistic quality, which we do 
not appreciate until our attention is called to them, and some previous 
knowledge of the subject always adds to our interest. 

At the end of each general account is a list of references, technical names 
of animals and plants mentioned in the text, etc., correlated by page and 
line, and printed all together in this way to avoid the use of footnotes. 
This plan while it no doubt adds to the beauty of the text is rather incon- 
venient for ready reference. Of the colored plates in the present volume, 
eight are by G. E. Lodge; six by Archibald Thorborn; four by H. Gron- 
vold and one by Charles R. Knight. The two other artists who will 
contribute to the later volumes are Louis Agassiz Fuertes and H. Jones. 
The original of Mr. Knight’s plate was an oil while all the others were 
water-colors; and the reproductions are by several different processes, 
some printed upon smooth paper others on ‘“‘egg-shell’’ — thus giving us 
the benefit of a variety of methods, some better suited to one painting, 
some to another, but all of such excellence that there is little choice except 
such as individual preference may dictate. 

The vexatious question of how to treat subspecies in a work of this sort 
has evidently caused the author no little trouble, as it has all who have had 
to deal with it, and the method adopted will we fear prove a little confusing 
to those not conversant with the difficulties involved. The specific aggre- 
gate called the ‘Himalayan Blood Partridge” and the two races (or sub- 
species) into which it is divided — the “‘ Nepal Himalayan Blood Partridge”’ 
and the “Sikhim Himalayan Blood Partridge’’ — are all considered under 
separate headings printed in exactly the same-sized type; the first contains 
the general information common to the two races while the last two contain 
only special information relative to the particular race under consideration. 
In spite of text explanations, however, we fear that the uninitiated reader 
will think that three different kinds of birds are being treated of instead of 
two. While well aware that this is the method adopted in the A. O. U. 
‘Check-List,’ the reviewer has reached the opinion that it is far clearer, 
either to consider the two subspecies only without reference to the specific 
aggregate, putting the general account of habits, etc., under the first; or 
to consider only the species, so far as headings go, and mention inconspicu- 
ously at the end of the account, the geographic races (subspecies) into which 
it may be divided. This is a problem of such general interest today that 
it cannot be passed without comment. We notice also some good-natured 
sarcasm here and there directed against nomenclature as such. ‘‘What’s 
in a name?” says Capt. Beebe; “let us pass from discussion of the arti- 
ficial handle applied by man during the last few years of the Tragopan’s 
existence to the real vital study of the birds themselves.” Nevertheless 
he has occasion to make use of quite a number of these artificial handles 
and to choose between the several that have in many cases been given to 
the same species or genus. While it is gratifying to find him saying of one 


2, Recent Literature. ES 


Jan. 


name, that it has ‘‘the profound merit of priority, and, hoping it may make 
toward the long-desired goal of stability in nomenclature, I have chosen to 
adopt it,’’ we regret to find in another instance that he deliberately violates 
the rules of the International Commission by choosing to emend the spell- 
ing of the genus Jthagenis. If everyone chooses for himself in matters 
of names we shall certainly not arrive very soon at the desired goal. How- 
ever, these are but technical matters, which the reviewer may perhaps be 
pardoned for mentioning, since they are constantly coming to his attention 
in all sorts of exasperating forms in the varied literature of the day, but 
we now cheerfully adopt Capt. Beebe’s suggestion and pass on to things 
worth while. 

Immediately preceding the systematic part of the work is an admirable 
introduction of thirty-one pages, giving a résumé of many subjects which 
are treated more in detail under the various species. This contribution 
is one of the most important portions of the text and is deserving of careful 
study by all interested in the general problems of ornithology as well as in 
the pheasants in particular. 

In its perusal we notice that Capt. Beebe follows Sharpe in the general 
classification of the pheasants, and omits the Turkeys and Guineafowl which 
figured in Elliott’s monograph, but which are now considered to represent 
quite independent families. While omitting most of the subfamily Perdi- 
cine, which are not popularly regarded as pheasants, and were not included 
in the family in Elliot’s day, he retains in his work two genera, the Blood 
Partridges and the Tragopans, which Elliot considered members of the 
family and which are generally considered as pheasants. Thus we see 
that the word pheasant and the family Phasianide are by no means 
coextensive terms. While adopting Sharpe’s four subfamilies Capt. 
Beebe does not do so blindly, and has the satisfaction of citing an excellent 
character for their separation which we do not think has been previously 
used, i. e. the order of molt of the tail feathers — a character of particular 
interest to the reviewer, as he called attention to it in another connection 
in 1896. Another character which he makes use of is geographic distribu- 
tion, and “by refusing to include in any single genus species whose ranges 
coincided or overlapped” he effected “a breaking up or coalescing of 
certain genera whose status had been in dispute.’’ While strict adherence 
to this rule in genera of more numerous species would not be practicable 
the principle involved is one that deserves more consideration than has 
usually been accorded to it. External modifications of structure, espe- 
cially in such wonderfully plumaged birds as the pheasants, often obscure 
their true relationships and these are often revealed by a study of their 
geographic distribution. Considering this subject further and entirely 
apart from the systematic relationship of the species, Capt. Beebe con- 
cludes that the pheasants are of northern origin and that the farther south 
we go the greater is their specialization. In this investigation he would 
we think have been justified in including the twenty-nine genera of Perdi- 


oe 1919 | Recent Literature. 123 


cine which, not being regarded as ‘‘ pheasants,” have no place in the system- 
atic part of the monograph, but are none the less Phasianids, and his 
conclusions would thereby have been still further strengthened. Under 
“Comparative Abundance’ we learn that pheasants fall into three groups 


‘according to their gregariousness. The Argus and its allies live a solitary 


life, associated with none of their kind except for a brief period in the mating 
season; others, like the Kaleege, are eminently gregarious; while still 
others, like the Tragopans and Jungle Fowl, are usually found in pairs. 
Protective coloration comes in for some very intelligent discussion. 
Capt. Beebe suggests a rather novel test to determine whether a given bird 
is really protectively colored or not. The wild pheasants which have no 
experience with man act exactly the same upon his approach as they do in 
the presence of their natural enemies, and his plan is to observe the bird’s 
realization of its own degree of protection as shown by its actions. Dull 
colored hen-pheasants almost invariably squatted on the approach of an 
intruder, thus showing their reliance on their ability to escape observation, 
while the brilliantly colored cocks immediately took wing, a tacit admis- 
sion of their lack of protection so far as coloration is concerned. Capt. 


Beebe is, however, pessimistic as to the possibility of any sort of compromise 


on the part of those who hold that all animals are protectively colored. 
As an illustration he humorously states that on one trip he saw some 600 
peafowl, each one of which took wing immediately and sought the tops of 
the highest trees in the neighborhood which commanded the widest out- 
look — an action that proved to his mind that the bird was not protectively 
colored. When this was related to a friend who was an advocate of the 
universal protection idea, he replied, “but think of the 6000 birds concealed 
by their plumage that you did not see.’’ The author states that he knew 
from his intimate acquaintance with peafowl that he could not have 
overlooked any of them, but no conclusive proof could be offered satisfactory 
to his friend! 

There is also some interesting discussion of sexual selection and its part 
in developing the wonderful plumes of the cock pheasants, this family 
being notorious for the part that it has played in the elaboration of this 
and allied theories. 

“The thought of the little brown hens picking and choosing among their 
suitors is charming,” says Capt. Beebe, ‘‘one would like to think of 
the hens playing off one cock against another in conscious mental compari- 
son, of appraising this ruff with that patch of gold,” etc., etc.; but he 
adds, ‘‘However much I should like to do so I can credit pheasants with 
no appreciation of the beauties with which they are so generously endowed.” 

His conclusions are that the whole kaleidoscopic display of the male 
produces a mental effect upon the hens ‘“‘not zsthetic, not distinctly critical 
or attentional, but a slow indirect influence upon the nerves, the arousing 
of a soothing, pleasing emotion which stimulates the wonderful sequence of 
instincts which will result in nest-making, egg-laying, the weeks of patient 


124 Recent Literature. ES 
brooding and the subsequent care of the young.”....Furthermore, “the 


male who, either by vanquishing his rivals or who by strength and persis- 
tency most frequently and effectively displayed, will win the hen, regardless 
of whether the actual process be by xsthetic appreciation or by some sub- 
conscious hypnotic-like influence.” 

While we must admit the hypnotic power of the wonderful display of 
the gorgeous cock-pheasants of many species, we must also, it would seem, 
admit that all things have a beginning, and how the crude one-wing dis- 
play of our familiar barnyard cock could have any such hypnotic influence 
and prove so successful as to start the evolution of the splendid plumage of 
the Argus and other pheasants we cannot conceive. At the same time we 
fully admit the strength of Capt. Beebe’s contention that we cannot view 
these things through the bird’s eyes nor they, through ours. Furthermore 
we might suggest that the remarkable regularity of the date of migration 
in transient birds as well as that of the date of nesting would seem to point 
to the fact that the various instinctive impulses to which our author refers 
are physiological and are started with a regularity so remarkable that it 
would hardly seem susceptible of being stimulated by display on the part 
of the male or by any other external factor. It is not commendable to 
offer only destructive criticism, but the reviewer must confess himself 
without any alternative suggestion and is entirely in accord with Capt. 
Beebe’s opening sentence, that “It is staggering to the student of evolution 
to attempt to explain the origin and development of such a structure as the 
orange and black ruff of the Golden Pheasant.”’ 

It is impossible in the short space of a review to consider the systematic 
portion of this splendid work in detail. We have already referred to the 
accounts of the birds in their native haunts. In these Capt. Beebe has 
managed to incorporate to a remarkable degree the environment of the 
wild bird, so that we can almost see the scene for ourselves. The sketches 
are full of what Dr. Spencer Trotter has called the ornithological back- 
ground. As an example we quote from the account of the Blood Pheasant 
which our author sought on the ‘arctic’ meadows of the high Himalayas: 
“Without warning, the sun dropped behind a distant ridge. It was as if 
someone had turned out some enormous lamp. Luminous clouds appeared 
in the air that before had been so clear, and the first whisper of the cold 
night wind echoed softly in the crags. The insects vanished, and one by 
one the icicles and rivulets were silenced at the touch of the coming twilight. 
From a high ravine came the plaintive call of a white-capped redstart, 
and a gray fox barked from somewhere far off. Then in the rich after- 
glow, reflected from the mountains of snow, seven birds appeared over the 
crest of the ridge. They came slowly, one after another, and I knew them 
at once for the Blood Partridges I had come so far to find. Through my 
glasses every feather was distinct, every movement clear, as the birds 
straggled down the slope. Now and then several of them would loiter 
and pick at the abundant red berries....I watched them eagerly, cau- 


. 


Vol. faa | Recent Literature. 125 


tiously — watched them until they vanished among the uppermost ranks 
of the dwarf rhododendrons. I stood up stiffened with cold and my long 
waiting. In the west I saw the last pink tinge die out upon the clouds 
which now hid the snows. As I turned toward camp a single snowflake 
melted on my face, and I realized anew how grimly winter fights for 
supremacy far up on the world’s roof.” 

We must make one more quotation, reflecting another side of pheasant 
history: Capt. Beebe says: “‘My survey of their haunts made me pessi- 
mistic in regard to their future. In India there seemed a slight lessening 
among the natives of the religious regard for wild life which has been such a 
boon to the birds in this densely populated part of the world. In the Malay 
States great rubber plantings threaten the whole fauna of some places. 
In Nepal and Yunnan the plume hunter is working havoc. In China the 
changing diet from rice to meat and the demand in Europe for ship-loads 
of frozen pheasants has swept whole districts clear of these birds.”” The 
great war has checked many activities that have made for the destruction 
of the pheasants, but this, he adds, is perhaps ‘‘the last pause in the slow, 
certain kismet, which from the ultimate increase and spread of mankind, 
must result in the total extinction of these splendid birds.” 

After reading this we are more than ever grateful to all who have con- 
tributed to make this beautiful work possible. While Capt. Beebe may 
be the only man who has studied all the types of these wonderful birds 
in their native haunts,— perhaps the only one who will enjoy that privi- 
lege,— his facile pen and ability as a photographer combined with the talents 
of his corps of artists and the generous support of Col. Kuser, have made 
it possible for thousands of others to enjoy the reproduction of that which 
it was given to him to see in reality — W. S. 


Leo Miller's ‘In the Wilds of South America.’ '— When Dr. Frank 
M. Chapman began his investigations of South American bird life in 1911 
he took with him to Colombia Leo E. Miller, a young man then quite 
unknown in the field of zodlogical exploration. So readily did Mr. Miller 
adapt himself to the explorer’s life and such an adept field collector did 
he become that he was kept in South America, in the interests of the 
American Museum, almost continuously from that time until America 
entered the war. During these six years he practically circled the coast of 
the southern continent north of Buenos Ayres and visited every one of the 
republics, carrying on active collecting and exploration in eight of them. 

While the technical results of at least a part of Mr. Miller’s work have 
been published by Dr. Chapman and others, mainly in the ‘ Bulletin’ of the 
American Museum, he has himself prepared the account of his travels, 


1In the Wilds of South America, Six Years of Exploration in Columbia, Venezuela, 
British Guiana, Peru, Bolivia, Paraguay and Brazil. By Leo E. Miller of the American 
Museum of Natural History, with over 70 illustrations and a map. New York, Charles 
‘Scribners’ Sons, 1918. 8vo. pp. 1-424. 


126 Recent Literature. (Fane 


Jan. 


elaborated from his journals, with side lights on the natural history, 
physical characteristics and the varied peoples of the countries which he 
visited and has embodied them in the attractive volume before us. 

The narrative is written in a clear, unassuming manner, which holds 
one’s attention from chapter to chapter, while excellent photographic 
illustrations by the author add to the interest of the text. Before we reach 
the bottom of the first page we encounter a description of the Brown 
Pelicans of Buenaventura Bay, Colombia, and scarcely a page is passed 
that we do not find reference to one or more representatives of the wonder- 
ful neotropical avifauna, or the less known mammals of the South American 
continent. 

Long museum experience may give one a reasonable familiarity with 
South American birds, so far as the plumage of the species is concerned, 
but we know nothing in this way of their habits — how they occur and 
where; whether conspicuous or not; their relative abundance; the charac- 
ter of their calls, their songs, etc., and Mr. Miller’s book gives us just this 
knowledge of the most striking species. We read his narrative and en- 
counter one after another the birds which attract the attention of the 
traveller just as we do the striking features of the scenery, the plant life 
and the towns and villages, and can almost imagine that we are on the trail 
ourselves. 

The opening chapters treat of some of the Colombian explorations which 
formed the basis of Dr. Chapman’s ‘ Distribution of Bird Life in Colombia,” 
reviewed in ‘The Auk’ for April, 1918. Then follows a trip up the Orinoco 
to the mysterious Mt. Duida, and a short sojourn in British Guiana. We 
then pass to the Roosevelt expedition, to which Mr. Miller was attached 
as one of the field naturalists, and read of hunting and collecting experiences 
in Paraguay and Brazil and the descent of the Rio Gy-Parana, which one 
part of the expedition explored while Col. Roosevelt and the rest of the 
party descended the Rio da Duvida (now the Rio Teodoro). Mr. Miller’s 
next expedition was down the west coast of Peru, across to central Bolivia 
and down into Argentina. 

Besides the constant incidental mention of birds throughout the text,. 
two chapters are devoted almost entirely to ornithological matter. One 
of these is entitled ‘In Quest of the Cock-of-the-Rock,’ a search which 
resulted in the discovery of the nest eggs and young of this curious, crested, 
scarlet Cotinga, an inhabitant of the subtropical zone of the Colombian 
Andes, its nesting site being the wet cliffs adjoining mountain waterfalls 
in the densest forest. ‘Bird-nesting in Northwestern Argentina’ is another 
chapter dealing largely with birds, including an account of a search for an 
obscure species of Tapacola (Scytalopus). Incidentally there is considerable 
discussion of the nesting habits of the Cowbird of the region, Molothrus 
bonariensis, and of its most frequent victim, the Ovenbird (Furnarius rufus). 
Not infrequently the Cowbird lays several eggs in the same nest and in the 
case of one Mockingbird’s nest Mr. Miller found no less than fourteen eggs: 


Serial _ Recent Literature. Lod 


of the intruder. Another Cowbird M. badius makes a nest of its own and 
rears its own young. 

Members of the Audubon Society will be pleased to know that in Argen- 
tina there are game laws and closed seasons, and that a permit is necessary 
in order to collect specimens, while the collector will rejoice to learn that 
officials are most courteous and obliging, and that the necessary permit 
was secured in a few hours which included a railway journey to the nearest 
city. 

Mr. Miller’s book is one that we can heartily recommend to the general 
reader who wishes to know something of South America, from the everyday 
experience of the traveller, both in the long settled districts and in the 
wilderness, while it should be in the library of every ornithologist and 
mammalogist. The day is past when the student of this or that branch 
of natural science can limit his reading to technical monographs. He must 
know something of the animal in its natural surroundings in order to appre- 
ciate the relationship between color and background, adaptation and 
environment; and to enable him to extend his studies beyond the mere 
description of a new species based on a museum specimen. And as a 
contribution to this field of literature Mr. Miller’s book holds an important 
place. 

We regret that there is no index, as it is difficult to find again some para- 
graph that deals with a certain species in which we may be interested, and 
the utility of the volume is impaired to that extent. It is also regrettable 
’ that the author has seen fit to make use of the names of certain familiar 
North American birds — such as Red-headed Woodpecker and White- 
throated Sparrow — for South American species which are only remotely 
related to them, as in spite of the citation of the correct technical names 
many popular readers will imagine that these familiar birds occur in 
South America as migrants. In the ‘Contents’ there seems to be an error 
of some kind in dividing the book into parts. Part one, headed “Colom- 
bia,” includes nine chapters all devoted to that country, but part two, 
headed “Venezuela,” contains seventeen chapters only two of which have 
anything to do with this republic. This however is a trifling matter. The 
typography and general appearance of the volume from the standpoint 
of the bookmaker are excellent.— W. S. 


Van Oort’s Birds of the Netherlands.'— We are in receipt of parts I 
and II of an important illustrated work on the birds of Holland by the well 
known ornithologist, Dr. E. D. Van Oort, Director of the Natural History 
Museum at Leiden. From a prospectus by the author and the publisher, 


1 Ornithologica Neerlandica|de | Vogels van Nederland|door|Dr. E. D. Van Oort| Directeur 
van’s Rijks Museum van Naturlijke Historie | te Leiden | Met ongeveer vierhonderd gek- 
leurde Platen|’s Gravenhage | Martinus Nijhoff. (Lange Voorhout, The Hague, Holland.] 
Royal quarto, Part I, pp. 1-24, plates 1-10; part II, pp. 25-56, plates 11-20. [1918]. 
Price, 12.50 Gld. per part. 


7 


128 Recent Literature. [pe 


Jan. 


Martinus Nijhoff, we learn that the complete work is to consist of five 
volumes, two of eight parts, two of seven and one of ten. Each part will 
contain ten plates and four or five parts will be issued annually so that 
there will be in all 400 plates while the undertaking will require from eight 
to ten years for completion. 

The two parts already issued give promise of a work that will be the 
standard authority on the birds of the Netherlands and a fitting companion 
to Mr. Van Pelt Lechner’s ‘ Oologica Neerlandica’ published a few years 
ago by Mr. Nijhoff, and reviewed in these columns. The text of the 
present work consists of sections dealing with each order, family and genus, 
covering structural characters and matters of nomenclature and distribu- 
tion, as well as keys to the genera and species. Under each species are 
given the original reference and a full synonymy of references to the bird 
in the Netherlands; then follows a list of the Dutch vernacular names and 
the most familiar English, French and German names. The various 
plumages are described with more than ordinary detail, with measurements 
of specimens, and there are full accounts of the distribution of the species, 
dates of occurrence in the Netherlands and manner of nesting, with deserip- 
tions and measurements of the eggs. 

The colored plates, from paintings by Mr. M. A. Koekkoek, are excellent 
of their kind, and fully up to the standard of most works of this sort; 
the coloring is accurate and all matters of detail are worked out with the 
greatest care. Of course they are not to be compared with the work of 
Thorborn, Fuertes and some of the other leaders in bird portraiture, who 
present to the life the characteristic actions and postures of the birds as 
well as colors and proportions, but they are nevertheless admirable illus- 
trations, well above the average. There is some range of variation in the 
execution too, and the plates of the Little Grebe, Fulmar and Storm Petrel 
are worthy of especial mention. A particularly praiseworthy feature of 
the illustrations is the large number of figures that are given of the same 
species in order to show the variations due to season, sex and age, which 
is a great help to a proper understanding of the plumages. 

The text is, of course, wholly in Dutch but nevertheless Dr. Van Oort’s 
work is one which should be in all reference libraries, in this country as 
well as in Europe. 

In matters of nomenclature the author seems to be quite up to date so 
far as can be judged from the two parts of the work before us. The name 
Colymbus is, however, used for the Loons and Podiceps for the Grebes, 
apparently on the basis of Gray’s designation of arcticus as the type of the 
former (in 1855); this, however, we fear cannot hold as Gray was not 
dealing with the tenth edition of Linnzeus’ ‘Systema,’ when the designa- 
tion was made, but with that of 1735. 

The typography, paper and general makeup of the book are excellent 
and fully up to the publisher’s high standards. We congratulate both 
author and publisher upon the first parts of this notable work and wish 
them all success in completing their task.— W. 8. 


Vol. ae. | Recent Literature. 129 


Mathews’ ‘The Birds of Australia.’'— The last part of Mr. 
Mathews’ work that we have received covers the families Caprimulgide 
and Micropodide and begins the Cuculide. There are nine plates and 
while most of them are up to the standard of the previous parts that of the 
Swiftlets appears particularly crude in comparison with the present-day 
standard of ornithological illustrations. 

In the treatment of the Nightjars we note two new genera, Rassornis 
(p. 234), type Caprimulgus macrurus Horsf., and Hximiornis (p. 235), 
type, C. eximius Temm., and three new races: FRassornis macrurus coinci- 
dens (p. 241), Cairns, Queensland; R. m. rogersi (p. 242), Melville Island; 
and R. m. aruensis (p. 242), Aru Islands. The views of various recent 
students of the geographic races of this species as quoted by Mr. Mathews 
seem so irreconcilable that we question whether when subdivisions are 
carried to the present limits, where individual opinion is In many cases the 
most important factor in the discussion, we shall ever have any generally 
recognized results. 

In connection with his treatment of the Swifts he goes at length into the 
systematic arrangement of the Cheturine, concluding that the presence of 
spines on the tail feathers of two genera is not necessarily evidence of close 
relationship, but that caudal spines may develop independently in genera 
not closely connected phylogenetically while a single genus may show them 
in various stages of development. His scheme, with the new genera which 
he proposes, is as follows: 


LarGeR Forms. 


Hirundapus Hodgs. Pallenia Bon. Streptoprocne Oberh. 
SMALLER Forms. 
American. Chetura Stephens. 
West African. Telacanthura gen. nov. (p. 264), type Chetura ussheri 
Sharpe. 


Neafrapus gen. nov. (p. 264), type C. cassini Sclater. 
Alterapus nov. gen. (p. 264), type C. sabini Gray. 
Indo-Malayan. Rhaphidura Oates. 
Indicapus nov. gen. (p. 265), type Acanthylis sylvatica 
Tickell. 
Madagascar. Zo6navena gen noy. (p. 265), type C. grandidieri. 
Philippines. Mearnsia Ridgw. 
New Guinea. Papuanapus gen. nov. (p. 266), type C. nove-guinee D’ Alb. 
and Salvad. 


Cypseloides Streubel. 

Nephcecetes Baird. 

Aerornis Bertoni. 

Cheeturellus gen. nov. (p. 267), type Hirundo rutila Vieill. 


1 The Birds of Australia. By Gregory M. Mathews. Vol. VII, Part III., August 26, 
1918. 


130 Recent Literature. ae 


Jan. 


We notice but one new swift, Zodnava francica oberholseri (p. 253), for 
which no type specimen is cited though we infer that the type locality is 
the Fiji Islands. 

In connection with the name Nephecetes which Mr. Mathews changes 
to Nephocetes he has perhaps overlooked the article in ‘The Auk’ 1899 
(pp. 20-23), by the late Dr. Gill in which it is shown that the former 
spelling is the one which occurs first in the volume. While its use on 
p. xviii (Baird, Cassin and Lawrence, Birds of North America) may be 
regarded as a nomen nudum that on p. xxix, where it is definitely connected 
with the species niger Gmelin, cannot be disregarded. 

Under the Cuckoos we note as new: Vidgenia (p. 311) type, Cacomantis 
castaneiventris and a race C. rubricatus eyeri (p. 320), from Eyer’s Penin- 
sula, S. Australia. 

While the text as usual is largely devoted to nomenclature and classifica- 
tion, there are many notes of importance on the habits of the various 
species, and a vast amount of data on the parasitism of the Cuckoos. 

There is a typographical error to which attention might be called on 
p. 247, where Mr. DeWitt Miller’s name is cited as “ Delbitt ”? Miller. 

Mr. Mathews has now covered 404 species of the Australian avifauna and 
by consulting his ‘ Reference List ’ we should judge that he had his gigantic 
task more than half completed. He certainly is to be congratulated upon 
the persistence with which it has been carried on in spite of the war and its 
resultant hindrances, and we wish him all speed and success with the 
succeeding parts.— W. 8. 


Beebe’s ‘ Jungle Peace.’ !— In ‘The Auk’ for 1917 we had the pleas- 
ure of reviewing Capt. Beebe’s ‘ Tropical Wild Life in British Guiana,’ 
the report of the first season’s work at the tropical research laboratory of 
the New York Zodlogical Society. This was of necessity a record of 
scientific achievement and was written in that spirit. In ‘ Jungle Peace’ 
however, the author tells the same story in a way that appeals more directly 
to the layman. But be he scientist or layman, the reader who is fond of 
nature or of travel, and who picks up Capt. Beebe’s little volume, will not 
be likely to lay it aside until he has read it through. To use his own words, 
the author has in this volume stolen ‘“ quietly up the side aisle of the great 
green wonderland, looking at all things obliquely, observing them as 
actors and companions rather than as species and varieties, softening facts 
with quiet meditation, leavening science with thoughts of the sheer joy 
of existence.”’ . 

There is much the same charm in his writing that one finds in John 
Burroughs’ books, but his field is much broader and he opens up a new 
world to his readers. The wild life of which he writes ts far beyond the 


1 Jungle Peace. By William Beebe, Curator of Birds, New York Zodlogical Park, and 
Director of Tropical Research Station. Illustrated from Photographs, New York. Henry 
Holt and Company, 1918, pp. 1-297, price, $1.75. 


aes | Recent Literature. 131 


experience of most of us, but we have long desired just such a vivid and in- 
timate picture of this wonderful tropic country as Capt. Beebe has given us. 

The title of the little book is explained in the first chapter. The author 
had played his part in the great struggle that has just come to a close in 
Europe and after the horrors of war he says “ the mind seeks amelioration 
—some symbol of worthy content and peace — and for my part I turn 
with all desire to the jungles of the tropics. . . . The peace of the jungle 
is beyond all telling.” 

The chapters entitled, ‘Sea-wrack’ and ‘ Islands,’ cover the voyage to 
British Guiana with visits to the Lesser Antilles and Barbados; while the 
others: ‘The Pomeroon Trail,’ ‘A Hunt for Hoatzins’; ‘ Hoatzins at 
Home’; ‘A Wilderness Laboratory’; ‘The Convict Trail’; ‘ With an 
Army of Ants ‘Somewhere ’”’ in the Jungle’, and ‘ Jungle Night,’ treat 
of the Bartica District, British Guiana, and that on ‘A Yard of Jungle’ 
relates to Para at the mouth of the Amazon. All but three of the chapters 
have appeared in ‘ The Atlantic Monthly’ and the many who enjoyed 
reading them there will be glad to have them brought together in the 
handy volume.— W. 8S. 


Riley on a Collection of Birds from Northeastern Siberia.'— Mr. 
Copley Amory, Jr., accompanied the Koren Expedition to the Kolyma 
River region of northeastern Siberia in 1914 and obtained 228 specimens of 
birds and a few eggs which were all presented to the National Museum and 
are here reported upon by Mr. Riley. As Thayer and Bangs had already 
described a collection made by Mr. Koren on a previous expedition to the 
same region it was not to be expected that any new forms would be in- 
cluded in the present material, but many notes of interest on plumage and 
relationship are presented as well as some field notes by Mr. Amory. 
Seventy-six species are listed and of all but one of these specimens were - 
obtained.— W. S. 


Shufeldt on the Skeleton of the Kea Parrot.’— Dr. Shufeldt has had 
the opportunity of studying the skeleton of a specimen of Nestor notabilis 
recently received at the National Zodlogical Park, in a shipment of nine 
individuals presented by the New Zealand Government, this individual 
having died en route. He has prepared ten admirable photographs show- 
ing all the portions of the skeleton, and these have been excellently repro- 
duced. There is also a detailed description of the bones, covering thirteen 
pages, in which there is occasional comparison with Ara chloroptera and 
Amazona and with Mivart’s figure of the tongue of Lorius flavopalliatus. 


1 Annotated Catalogue of a Collection of Birds made by Mr. Copley Amory, Jr., in 
Northeastern Siberia. By J. H. Riley. Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., Vol. 54, pp. 607-626. 
(Issued October 28, 1918.) 

2The Skeleton of the ‘*Kea Parrot”? of New Zealand (Nestor notabilis). The Emu, 
XVIII, Part I, July 1, 1918, pp. 25-43. 


132 Recent Literature. (rae 


Jan. 


There is a preliminary review of the arrangement of Nestor in relation to 
other parrots in the classifications of various authors, and we were in hopes 
that Dr. Shufeldt, with the material at his disposal, would shed some 
further light on the subject, but upon turning to the conclusions we are 
disappointed to find only that ‘the family Nestoridze may now be con- 
sidered an established fact, in so far as the morphology of Nestor notabilis 
is concerned.’ However, the plates and detailed description should aid 
others to make fuller comparisons with skeletons of the supposed allies 
of Nestor when opportunity offers.— W. 8. 


Murphy’s Photographs of South Georgia Birds.— In the American 
Museum Journal for October, 1918, Mr. Robert C. Murphy has a number 
of photographs of the birds of South Georgia Island accompanied by 
explanatory descriptions. Full accounts of these species have appeared 
in his several papers in ‘ The Auk’ and six of the photographs were previ- 
ously published in connection with them. Several of those now published 
have been enlarged and are printed with more extended backgrounds 
adding much to their appearance.— W. 8. 


Taverner’s Recent Papers on Canadian Birds.'— In the ‘ Canadian 
Alpine Journal,’ Mr. P. A. Taverner has published a list of birds secured or 
observed by the Canadian Geological Survey Expedition, mainly by Mr. 
Wm. Spreadborough, in Jasper Park, Alberta, during the summer of 1917. 
Most of the notes deal with species supplementary to Mr. J. H. Riley’s list 
for the same region, published in the Journal for 1912, and they are num- 
bered continuously with it, from 79 to 108. The few notes on species listed 
by Riley are entered without numbers. There are some interesting re- 
marks on the southward movement of Horned Owls and Goshawks and 
their destruction of the Grouse, and also some systematic conclusions of 
interest. The two Song Sparrows obtained on the expedition, topotypes of 
Riley’s Melospiza m. inexpectaia, are regarded as closest to a series of 
merrilli identified by Oberholser and Mr. Taverner fails to find ‘‘ the char- 
acters described by Riley as characteristic of his new form.’”’ The Canada 
Jays he regards as nearest to Perisoreus c. fumifrons if that is a tenable 
subspecies, certainly nearer to canadensis than to capitalis. The Flickers 
were none of them pure, with the cafer tendency stronger than the auratus. 

Another important paper by the same author is on ‘ The Hawks of the 
Canadian Prairie Provinces in their Relation to Agriculture.’ This corrob- 
orates the results obtained by the investigations of the U. 8. Dept. of 
Agriculture, in that the majority of hawks, with the exception of the 
Accipiters, are beneficial. The damage done by Gophers both as destroyers 


1 Addenda to the Birds of Jasper Park, Alberta. Canadian Alpine Journal, Vol. IX, 
1918, pp. 62-69. 

2Museum Bulletin No. 28, Canadian Department of Mines. Biol. Series, ‘No. 7, 
August, 1918. 


nak: tt | Recent Literature. 133 


of crops and as carriers of cattle disease is emphasized, as well as the im- 
portance of conserving the Buteonine hawks as a natural check upon them 
when their chief enemy the Coyote disappears. The plea that has recently 
been advanced in Pennsylvania in defense of removing protection from 
these birds —i. e. that the farmer cannot distinguish one hawk from 
another and therefore does not know when he can kill a hawk, if some are 
protected and others not, is disposed of in the following words: ‘‘ With so 
much at stake a farmer or sportsman is no more justified in advancing 
ignorance as an excuse than he is in proclaiming his inability to distinguish- 
between crops and weeds.. discrimination is a part of his business and 
as such should be studied.’’ Eight colored figures of hawks from clever 
paintings mainly by F. C. Hennessey illustrate the paper.— W. S. 


‘ Aves ’ in the Zoological Record.'— Mr. W. L. Sclater has again ably 
catalogued the ornithological literature of the world, for the year 1916. 
Titles to the number of 942 are listed and systematically catalogued, an 
increase of eight over 1915. We notice that the German ornithological 
journals were accessible in England for at least a part of 1916, while none 
have reached ‘The Auk’ or any of the American libraries, so far as we are 
aware, since the issues for July or August, 1915! Evidently the British 
ornithologists are not inclined to adopt Lord Walsingham’s suggestion 
(ef. Nature, Sept. 5, 1918) that for the next twenty years at least scientific 
men shall by common consent ignore all papers published in the German 
language. Dr. W. J. Holland’s reply to Lord Walsingham’s proposition 
(Science, Nov. 8, 1918) should be read by all interested in this matter, 
and we think all fair-minded persons will agree with him that there are 
plenty of ways to secure justice against the Germans without disrupting 
the whole underlying framework of scientific nomenclature, which we have 
been at such pains to build up. Such arbitrary action is, as he says, only 
an attempt ‘‘to beat the Prussians by Prussianizing ourselves.’’ We are 
therefore very glad to find the last installment of ‘ Aves’ as complete as 
its predecessors with the contributions from the central powers included, 
no matter how strictly we may hold them accountable for the crimes of the 
war. The value of Mr. Sclater’s compilation to the working ornithologist 
we have emphasized on a former occasion and we can only endorse what was 
said then and again commend the Zodlogical Society for maintaining this 
record for us during the strenuous years that have just passed.— W. S. 


Proceedings of the Linnean Society of New York.?— Besides the 
usual numerous notes dealing mainly with the vicinity of New York City 


1 Zodlogical Record, Vol. LIII, 1916. Aves. By W. L. Sclater, M. A., pp. 1-72. 
August, 1918. Printed for the Zodlogical Society of London, sold at their House in Regent’s 
Park, London, N. W. Price six shillings. 

* Abstract of the Proceedings of the Linnzean Society of New York for the year ending 
March 12, 1918, No. 30, 1917-1918. Issued September 18, 1918, pp. 1-38, one plate. 


134 Recent Literature. Pees 


Jan. 


there are two special papers. The first, by John Treadwell Nichols, is 
entitled, ‘ Bird Notes from Florida’ and comprises notes on twenty-six 
species observed while cruising between Miami and Sanibel Light, from 
March 28 to April 21, 1917. Besides Mr. Nichols’ records of birds seen, 
there is a discussion of the spring migration including a record kept by 
Dr. and Mrs. G. Clyde Fisher at De Funiack Springs, northwest Florida, 
in the spring of 1909, and some observations on the habits of the Brown 
Pelican by Dr. Russell Coles. 

The second paper is by Mr. Jay A. Weber on ‘ Bird Temperatures,’ 
which includes records for one to three individuals, of sixty-five species of 
eastern North American birds. For Passerine species, which make up the 
bulk of the records, the temperatures ranges from 106.4 to 111.2. Mr. 
Weber declines to attempt to draw any deductions from his records, as he 
does not regard them as sufficiently complete. He also raises a possible 
question of accuracy in such records, since the live bird is in such a state of 
excitement at the time of taking the record that the temperature may, for 
that reason, be above the normal, while in the case of a recently killed bird 
the shock may have the same effect. The list is a valuable contribution to 
a somewhat neglected subject — W. S. 


Annual Report of the National Association of Audubon Societies. 
—In these war years when many institutions and societies have been 
hard pressed to keep from a temporary cessation of their activities the 
National Association of Audubon Societies has been able to continue with- 
out any reduction in the scope or extent of its activities, which is greatly to 
the credit of the officers in charge of its work. Realizing at the outset 
the important part that bird protection could play, as a guard against 
crop destruction by noxious insects, the Society made its appeal to the 
public on these lines and met with immediate response. In the days of 
food conservation the practical value of the Society’s work has appealed 
to the people as never before. 

The need of constant watching of the actions of the State Legislatures 
in relation to bird protection has been specially illustrated during the past 
year. The Gulls breeding on the Maine coast islands were assailed as 
being detrimental to sheep grazing, and the Brown Pelican in the Gulf 
States was branded as a destroyer of fishes needed for food, while efforts 
were made to wrest from the Government title to the Klamath and 
Malheur Bird Reservations in order to convert them into ranching country. 
The Society has been instrumental in demonstrating that the Gulls were 
beneficial to the sheep grazers, and that the Pelicans fed almost entirely 
on species not used for food, and one of the agents is now working to secure 
legislation in Oregon to ensure the permanent preservation of the bird 
reservations. In spite of all the published scientific data, laws are con- 


1 * Bird-Lore ’ November—December, 1918, pp. 453-560. 


ioe | Recent Literature. 35 


stantly being proposed to meet ignorant or selfish wishes for the destruc- 
tion of some bird or other, and the constant attention of such a body of 
trained men as the Audubon Societies provide is necessary to controvert 
such action. 

We can only speak in this connection of these few activities of the Associ- 
ation; everyone should get the report and read it for themselves. Besides 
the reports of the field agents,— always interesting and instructive,— 
there are reports from seventeen state societies and forty-two bird clubs 
and other affiliated organizations. In the report of the treasurer we note 
that the annual membership contributions amount to nearly $27,000; 
while a single anonymous subscription to the children’s educational fund 
is for $20,000. Truly the pioneers in this work can feel amply repaid for 
the time they unselfishly devoted to starting the movement for bird 
protection.— W. S. 


Zimmer on Rare Birds from Luzon and Mindoro.'— Mr. Zimmer 
presents notes on specimens of forty-two species, which on account of 
rarity, unusual distribution, or peculiar plumage are worthy of record. 
The specimens are from collections made by himself during the years 
1913-1916. One new form Hyloterpe crissalis, a Thickhead Shrike, is 
described as new (p. 230), from Mt. Banahao, Laguna, Luzon. A number 
of specimens of the hitherto unique Zosterornis affinis McGregor, were 
also obtained.— W. S. 


Recent Papers by Wetmore.’— Mr. Wetmore has recently made a 
study of the anatomy of Nyctibius and upon comparing it with Podargus 
and several of the Caprimulgide he comes to the conclusion that the 
differences between the Podargi and the Caprimulgi, recognized as 
superfamilies of the suborder Nycticoracie by Ridgway, are not so tren- 
ant and sharply defined as has been supposed. . Nyctibius appears to be 
about midway between the Caprimulgide and the Podargide and of 
twelve principal structural characters, used in the classification of these 
birds, it agrees with each group in five particulars. Mr. Wetmore would 
arrange the Nycticoracie in two superfamilies, the Steatornithoids and 
the Caprimulgoide, the former containing the single genus Steatornis and 
the latter the families Podargide, Nyctibiide, Agothelide and Caprimul- 
gide, the last being regarded as the highest. Attention is called to the 
need of further study of the anatomy of Agotheles and Batrachostomus in 
order to arrive at a clearer conception of their exact relationship. Our 
Australian coworkers should be able, with Mr. Wetmore’s paper as a basis, 


1A Few Birds from Luzon and Mindoro. The Philippine Jour. of Science, Vol. XIII, 
Sect. D. No. 5, September, 1918, pp. 219-232. 

2On the Anatomy of Nyctibius with Notes on Allied Birds. By Alexander Wetmore. 
Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus., Vol. 54, pp. 577-586. 


136 Recent Literature. [3 a 


to supply the desired information, or to furnish him with some of the needed 
material. 

In a second paper! he describes some bird bones from Kitchen Midden 
deposits on the islands of St. Thomas and St. Croix. These represent 
nine species from the former and seven from the latter. A femur and 
tibia from St. Thomas form the basis of a new genus and species of Rail- 
like bird, here named WNesotrochis debooyi (p. 516), while some vertebree 
from a large cooking vessel buried low in the deposit proved those of Gallus, 
agreeing exactly with recent bones of a female domestic fowl.— W. S. 


Five Contributions to Economic Ornithology by Collinge.— Dr. 
Walter E. Collinge of the University of St. Andrew’s, Scotland, in recent 
years has been the most active student of Economic Ornithology in Great 
Britain. It is of interest to note that he is convinced of the superiority 
of the volumetric method of analyzing the contents of birds’ stomachs, he 
being the first British investigator to adopt it. Two ? of his recent papers 
dwell more or less on this topic and in one of them he notes that upon 
reéxamination of his material representing the missel-thrush, adopting 
the volumetric instead of the numerical method he formerly used, he is 
compelled to reverse his estimate of its economic value. This is a striking 
illustration of the difference in results under the two systems. In this 
paper Dr. Collinge briefly treats of the economic status of eight common 
British birds of which two are distinctly injurious, viz., the House Sparrow 
and the Wood Pigeon; two are too numerous, and consequently injurious, 
viz., the Rook and the Sparrow Hawk; one is locally too numerous, viz., 
the Missel Thrush; and four are highly beneficial, viz., the Skylark, the 
Green Woodpecker, the Kestrel, and the Lapwing. 

The other three papers * by Dr. Collinge note the necessity of rational 
bird protection in Great Britain. All inclusive protection urged by propa- 
gandists has been overdone, and reaction has followed. Despite the long 
existence of a government bureau for the scientific investigation of economic 
ornithology, the United States has not entirely escaped harm resulting 
from the activities of bird protection zealots. It will be well if the lessons 
we have had are taken to heart and trouble avoided in the future. Dr. 
Collinge’s summing up of the situation in Great Britain may be quoted: 

“1. That in the past the question of wild bird protection and destruc- 
tion has never received really serious consideration. The objects sought 


1 Bones of Birds Collected by Theodor De Booy from Kitchen Midden Deposits in the 
Islands of St. Thomas and St. Croix. By Alexander Wetmore. Ibid., pp. 513-522. 

2On the Value of the Different Methods of Estimating the Stomach Contents of Wild 
Birds. Scottish Naturalist, May 1918, pp. 103-108, 2 figs. 

Some Recent Investigations on the Food of Certain Wild Birds. Journ. Bd. Agr. 
{London], Vol. XXV, No. 6, Sept. 1918, pp. 668-691, 17 figs. 

3 Wild Birds in Relation to Agriculture, Jour. Land Agents’ Society, Vol. XVII, No 5. 
May 1918, pp. 202-208, 1 fig. 

Wild Birds and Legislation, Ibid., No. 7, July 1918, pp. 278-285. 

The Value of Insectivorous Birds, Nature, July 25, 1918, Reprint pp. 1-4. 


, 


‘Ce ea Recent Literature. 137 


in most of the Acts of Parliament upon the subject have been largely of a 
selfish nature and not for the good of the country.” 

“9. That the majority of these Acts have been ill-considered and often 
hastily prepared, many of them have been repealed and others frequently 
amended or modified.” 

“3. That no attempt has been made by those who advocate the pro- 
tection of wild birds, to understand the problem presented by wild bird 
life. Blindly, and often strongly prejudiced, they advocate protection for 
all birds, and protection only.” 

“4. That such an attitude is calling forth a deep resentment from those 
who have to live by the products of the soil, many of whom having waited 
in vain for repressive measures, have now taken to destroying wholesale all 
bird life.” 

“5. That the irresponsible advocacy of uniform protection ts indirectly 
contributing more than anything else to the wanton destruction of many of our 
most useful birds. ‘Some of the very greatest friends that our nation has 
are being destroyed without mercy ... . a defensive force upon which most 
of our prosperity depends.’ ” 

“6. That the immediate need of the present is for a wide and compre- 
hensive Act that will give protection to all non-injurious or beneficial 
birds, and provide adequate repressive measures for those species which 
have become too numerous and destructive.”’”— W. L. M. 


Chapman’s ‘Our Winter Birds.’'\— Dr. Chapman has the happy fac- 
ulty of accurately feeling the pulse of the bird-loving public and supplying 
just what they need almost before they realize their wants. It was so with 
the appearance of his ‘Hand-book’ many years ago and his ‘Bird Life’ 
and ‘Warblers’ in more recent years. Still more recently appeared a little 
monograph, one might almost say a primer, on bird migration under the 
title ‘The Travels of Birds,’ and now follows a similar little book on ‘Our 
Winter Birds,’ just the thing for school use and for beginners in bird study. 

On account of the comparative scarcity of birds in winter there seems to 

be a special charm at this season in rounding up the whole bird population 
of one’s neighborhood, as evidenced by the popularity of ‘Bird-Lore’s’ 
Christmas lists, and this little book will do wonders in teaching the public 
what birds may be seen in the cold months of the year and doubtless 
prevent many a mistake in identification. 
_ On the inside of the covers are small figures in colors of the common 
residents and winter visitants from admirable paintings by Mr. E. J. 
Sawyer, which do away with the necessity of long descriptions and permit 
the author to devote practically all the text to the habitat, habits and 
characteristic actions of the species. 

The text is divided into four parts, ‘Introduction,’ ‘Home Birds,’ ‘Field 


10ur Winter Birds. How to Know and How to Attract. Illustrations by Edmund J. 
Sawyer. D. Appleton and Company, New York and London. 1918, 12mo. pp. i-ix — 
1-180. Price $1.25 net; by mail $1.35. 


138 Recent Literature. eee 


Jan. 


Birds’ and ‘Forest Birds,’ and under these some fifty species are discussed 
in the author’s well known attractive style, while the two plates contain 
sixty-three figures. The book represents a clever idea well carried out. 
The publishers state that the present edition is designed especially for 
school use and is to be followed by another, more profusely illustrated for 
the general reader.— W. 8S. 


The Ornithological Journals. 


Bird-Lore. XX, No. 5. September—October, 1918. 

The Oven-bird in Minnesota. By Thomas 8. Roberts, M. D.— An 
admirable popular account with photographic reproductions of nests. 

A Day’s Sport with the Red-backs and Greater Yellow-legs. By Verdi 
Burtch.— With good photographs of both species. 

Some Notes on the Ruffed Grouse. By H. E. Tuttle. 

The Horned Larks form the subject for the articles of Migration and 
Plumages by Drs. Oberholser and Chapman respectively, with a plate by 
Fuertes illustrating five of the twenty-three races covered by the text. 

Bird-Lore, XX, No. 6, November—December, 1918. 

Notes from a Traveler in the Tropics. By Frank M. Chapman.— Dr. 
Chapman, who is on a mission to South America for the American Red 
Cross, describes the county through which he passed and the bird-life 
which he encounters en route. The first installment covers the coast- 
line trip to Cuba with illustrations of the Man-o’-war Bird and the Ani 
by Louis Agassiz Fuertes. 

When the North Wind Blows. By A. A. Allen— Winter Bird-life at 

“Ithaca, N. Y., with excellent illustrations from photographs by the author. 

Homeland and the Birds. By Mabel Osgood Wright.— A plea for 
special efforts at bird protection during the war. 

A Wild Duck Trap. By Verdi Burtch.— Caught by the freezing ice 
on the harbor at Branchport in a small open area where they starve to 
death. 

The papers on plumage and migration treat of the Magpies, and two 
thirds of the number are taken up with the annual report of the National 
Association of Audubon Societies. 

The Condor. XX, No. 5. September—October, 1918. 

Notes on the Nesting of the Mountain Plover. By W. C. Bradbury.— 
A study of the bird at a spot some twenty miles east of Denver, Colo., 
with numerous excellent illustrations from photographs. 

Frank Stephens — An Autobiography.— A valuable historical article 
with portrait. 

Evidence that Many Birds Remain Mated for Life. By F.C. Willard.— 
The evidence is mainly the fact that pairs of birds built in the same situa- 
tions year after year. The author admits that it is not conclusive and to an 
unprejudiced mind such facts would seem to point rather to the fact that 
one of the pair returned to the same spot in successive years. Bird- 


ue ean | Recent Literature. 139 
banding experiments have shown in several instances that of a banded pair 
of nesting birds only one was found nesting at the same spot in the following 
year, its mate being a different individual. 

A Return to the Dakota Lake Region. (Continued.) By Florence 
Merriam Bailey. 

Some Oceanic Birds from the Coast of Washington and Vancouver 
Island. By Stanton Warburton, Jr. 

Description of a New Subspecies of Cyanolemus clemencia. By Harry 
C. Oberholser.— C. c. bessophilus (p. 181) Chiricahua Mts., Arizona, the 
bird of the southwestern United States and Chihuahua, is separated from 
true C.c. clemencie which is restricted to northeastern, central and southern 
Mexico. 

Some Summer Birds of Alert Bay, British Columbia. By P. A. Taver- 
ner.— An annotated list of forty species. 

The Wilson Bulletin. XXX, No.3. September, 1918. + 

The Brown Pelican,— A Good Citizen. By Alfred M. Bailey.— A 
timely refutation of the charges made against this bird. 

Notes on the February Bird-life of Southern Mississippi and Louisiana. 
By Chreswell J. Hunt. 

A Vulture Census and Some Notes. By John Williams.— Valuable 
statistics on the habits and abundance of the Black and Turkey Vultures 
at St. Marks, Fla. 

Some Birds along the Trails of Glacier National Park. By P. E. Kretz- 
mann. 

Birds about our Lighthouse. By John Williams.— September 22-— 
October 5, 1917 at the mouth of St. Johns River, Florida. 

The Oologist. XV, No.9. September 1, 1918. 

Pennsylvania and New Jersey Nesting Dates for 1915. By R.F. Miller. 

South African Shrikes. By O. O. C. Nicholls.— In this article we notice 
upward of thirty typographical errors. Unfortunately this fault is rather 
frequent in ‘ The Odlogist,’ especially in the case of technical names. These 
are always difficult for both compositor and proof-reader and in a popular 
journal it would seem far better to omit them altogether than to continually 
misspell them. A number of contributors we notice have adopted this 
practice already. 

The Odlogist. XXXV, No. 10. October 1, 1918. 

Breeding Birds of the Pocono Mountains [Penna.] By A. D. McGrew. 

The Odlogist. XXXV, No. 11. November 1, 1918. 

An Annotated List of Birds Observed from May to July in Central Logan 
County, Illinois. By A. D. DuBois. 

Some Common Land Birds Found in the Immediate Vicinity of McKees- 
port, Penna. By Thos. L. McConnell. 

The Ibis. X Series, VI, No. 4. October, 1918. 

The Reversed Under Wing-coverts of Birds and their Modifications, as 
exemplified in the Birds of West Africa. By George L. Bates.— A very 


140 Recent Literature. fee 


Jan. 


important contribution to a rather neglected subject. The major and 
median under wing-coverts, as many may know, are reversed, that is to say 
the exposed side is the under side of the feather. Moreover they overlap 
one another in two ways, either in the same way as the remiges or in the 
opposite way, and they may be reduced in size or be in part lacking. The 
differences which they exhibit in these respects may naturally be of much 
importance as giving an intimation of relationships between different groups 
and Mr. Bates offers his notes with an idea of their use in this connection. 
While he does not consider them sufficiently complete for reaching any 
general conclusions he calls attention to the fact that the Owls and Night- 
jars show no tendency whatever to the condition prevailing in the Picarian 
families, that the Parrots show no resemblance to the Cuckoo type nor the 
Swifts to that prevailing in the Kingfishers and Woodpeckers. 

Notes on Recently Described Races of Siamese and Malayan Birds, with 
a Description of one New Race. By H.C. Robinson and C. Boden Kloss.— 
This paper and a reply by Mr. E. C. Stuart Baker deal with the validity of 
various new forms described mainly by Baker and Kloss. The brevity 
of many descriptions and the impossibility of recognizing the bird described, 
without access to the type have already been discussed in the review pages 
of ‘ The Auk,’ and we heartily endorse what these authors have to say in 
this line. While the status of some of the forms discussed is apparently 
settled, in the majority of cases each side maintains their opinion, and we 
have still another illustration of the impossibility of agreement where 
differences are so slight that personal opinion is the main criterion in de- 
ciding on their recognizability. 

Notes upon European Birds met with during a Short Visit to South 
Africa. By B. B. Riviere. 

A List of the Birds of the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan, based on-the Collec- 
tions of Mr. A. L. Butler, Mr. A. Chapman and Capt. H. Lynes, and Major 
Cuthbert Christy. Part II. By W. L. Slater and C. Mackworth Praed.— 
This contribution of 119 pages concludes the Passeres. As in the preceding 
instalment many species are considered with regard to all their geographic 
races and new forms are described both from the Sudan and elsewhere. 
We notice the following new forms proposed: Cinnyris osea butleri (p. 619), 
Lado Enclave; Rhodophoneus cruentus kordofanicus (p. 633), Western 
Kordofan; Tschagra senegala sudanensis (p. 637), Mongalla, Sudan; 
Cisticola erythrops zwaiensis (p. 656); Lake Zwai, southern Abyssinia; 
C. e. roseires (p. 657), Roreires, Sennar; Sylvietta rufescens transvaalensis 
(p. 667), Rustenberg, Transvaal; Hremomela flaviventris alexanderi (p. 673) 
Bara, Kordofan; Parisoma blanfordi somaliensis (p. 707), Mundara, 
Somaliland; Elminia longicauda loandae (p. 712), N’Dalla Tando, North 
Angola; and Hirundo puella unitatis (p. 718), Pinetown, Natal. 

This issue of “The Ibis ’ is the 224th and completes the tenth series of this 
notable magazine. The editor believes that it compares favorably with 
the previous series, notwithstanding the unprecedented events that have 


Hel: | Recent Literature. 141 


taken place throughout the world during the six years which it covers. In 
this opinion we heartily agree and offer our congratulations upon the 
success of his labors, the trying nature of which we appreciate only too 
well. 

Bulletin of the British Ornithologists’ Club. CCXXXVI. Octo- 
ber 29, 1918. 

Mr. Meade Waldo described the efforts for the protection of Kites in 
Wales. 

Mr. P. F. Bunyard exhibited nest feathers and down of the Harlequin 
Duck from Iceland and remarked on the errors in published descriptions 
of them. 

Major A. G. Sladen commented upon a collection of birds made in 
Palestine. 

Mr. E. C. Stuart Baker described a new flycatcher from Siam as Cyornis 
magnirostris cerulifrons (p. 8). 

Mr. W. L. Sclater succeeded Lord Rothschild as chairman of the Club 
for the next five-year period. 

British Birds. XII, No. 4. September, 1918. 

Some Breeding Habits of the Sparrow Hawk. By J.H. Owen. (Con- 
cluded.) 

Notes on the Autumn Migration at Odessa in 1917. By Maud D. 
Haviland. 

The Behaviour and Mouth-coloration of Nestling-birds.— By W. R. 
Butterfield— Argues for the protective value of these markings and of 
certain actions in frightening away enemies. 

British Birds. XII, No. 5. October, 1918. 

Nest Down in Some British Ducks. By Annie C. Jackson.— Relates to 
fourteen species. 

The Moults and Sequence of Plumages of the British Waders. By Annie 
C. Jackson, Part VIII.— Covers the genus Totanus and one species of 
Phalarope. 

British Birds. XII, No.6. November, 1918. 

Notes and Observations on the Nesting of the Bullfinch. By Frances 
Pitt.— With several excellent photographs of the bird at the nest. 

A List of Summer Birds Observed on the Outer Farne Islands. By 
Edward Miller. 

Avicultural Magazine. IX, No. 10. August, 1918. 

Wood-Swallows. A photograph of a pair feeding young. 

In a review of Beebe’s ‘ Tropical Wild Life,’ it is rather amusing to see 
the violent opposition of the reviewer to the use of the word ‘ Oriole’ for 
species of Icteride. Surely he must be aware that these birds have been 
known as ‘ Orioles’ continuously since the very beginnings of American 
ornithological literature and are now called ‘ Orioles’ by probably a far 
larger number of individuals than know the species of Oriolus by that 
name. We do not question the fact that the name belongs historically to 


142 Recent Literature. ao 


Jan. 


the latter, but it is as impossible to change such names today as it would 
be to change the names of several familiar objects of every-day use which, 
though quite different, are called by the same names on the two sides of 
the Atlantic. Curiously enough the word ‘ Flycatcher’ passes without 
protest in the same review for the American tyrants, which though per- 
fectly correct as the universal American term for the birds, is far worse 
than the case of ‘ Oriole,’ since the two groups of ‘ Orioles’ belong to the 
same suborder, while the two styles of ‘ Flycatcher’ do not. 

Avicultural Magazine. IX, No. 11. September, 1918. 

How Birds of Paradise are Caught. 

Twelve-wired Bird of Paradise. By Graham Renshaw.— Effect. of 
captivity on coloration. 

Avicultural Magazine. IX, No.12. October, 1918. 

Chinese Cage Birds. By K. H. Jones. 

Kaleege and other Pheasants. By Frank Finn. 

Ave Atque Vale: Villers-Bretonneaux — The total destruction of Lieut. 
Delacour’s magnificent aviary in the fighting in France. There were 360 
birds of 141 species contained in his collection. 

The Emu. XVIII, Part I. July, 1918. 

Australian Green-backed Finch (Krythrura trichroa macgillivrayt). 
By J. A. Kershaw. With colored plate. 

Notes on Some Additions to the H. L. White Collection. By A. J. 
Campbell. 

Birds of Lake Victoria and the Murray River for 100 Miles Down 
Stream. By Capt. 8. A. White.— A very interesting account with a fully 
annotated list. 

The Skeleton of the ‘‘ Kea Parrot ”’ of New Zealand (Nestor notabilis). 
By R. W. Shufeldt (see antea p. 131). 

Queensland Notes. By D. LeSouef.— Another interesting narrative. 

A Study of Australian Specimens of the Little Penguin (Eudyptula 
minor, Forster). By W. B. Alexander and Dr. Brooke Nicholls.— A 
careful study of sixty individuals which seems to show that the Australian 
birds are all referable to one race, Hudyptila minor novehollandia, instead 
of three as has been claimed by Mathews. 

Description of a New Subspecies of Hylacola pyrrhopygia (Vig. & Horsf.). 
By F. E. Howe. 4H. p. magna (p. 59), Cobbora, N.S. W. 

Nesting Notes from Moree. By F. C. Morse.— A diary of observations 
from September, 1917, to May 1918. 

The Emu. XVIII, Part Il. October, 1918. 

Striated Grass Wren (Amytornis striata, Gould). With colored plate of 
mounted birds. 

What are Australian Petrels? By Gregory M. Mathews.— Finds no 
recent records of thirteen of the species accredited to Australia by Gould. 
The editors question the advisability of rejecting the species from the 
Australian List on this account as they think that the birds’ ranges may have 


AY 


ek | Recent Literature. 143 


changed or they have for some reason become rarer. Incidentally Mr. 


Mathews endorses Murphy’s recently described species of Albatross 
Diomedia sanfordi and also the subgenus Rhothonia Murphy, raising it to 
a genus. 

Food of Diurnal Birds of Prey. By D. Le Souef. Shows that the 
Australian Eagles have been much maligned and do not do anything like 
the damage to lambs that they are credited with. 

Bird Notes from the Boat Harbor (Tasmania) Region. By Miss J. A. 
Fletcher. 

A Trip in Search of the Spotted Scrub-Wren (Sericornis maculata) and 
the Little Wattle-Bird (Anellobia lunulata). By C. L. E. Orton. 

Cormorants: Are they Pests or Otherwise? By W. T. Forster.— Some 


evidence of their devouring food fishes. 


The Jungle and the Snows. By Robert Hall.— An interesting account 
of a trip to India. 

An Afternoon Among the Birds in the Baltimore (Md.) Woods, United 
States of America. By Edwin Ashby.— Mr. Ashby visited America last 
summer and it is very interesting to read his impressions of our avifauna 
and to learn what Australian species our familiar birds brought to mind. 

Description of a New Subspecies of Malurus cyanotus. By H. L. White. 
— K. c. diamantina (p. 121), Diamantina River, W. Queensland. 

Description of a New Subspecies of Acanthiza nana. By H. L. White. 
—A.n. dawsoniana (p. 122), Dawson River, C. Queensland. 

Notes on Birds Seen on the Murray River, August, 1918. By W. B. 
Alexander. 

Descriptions of two New Nests and Eggs. By Henry L. White.— 
Malurus leucopterus edouardii and Hremiornis cartert. 

South Australian Ornithologist. III, Part 8. October, 1918. 

Notes upon the Black-breasted Plover (Zonifer tricolor). By S.A. White. 
— With photographs of bird and nests. 

A Sketch of the Life of Samuel White. By 8. A. White. 

Revue Frangaise d’Ornithologie. X, No. 112-113. August- 
September, 1918. [In French.] 

Some Defensive Reactions of Bird Colonies. By M. R. Deschiens. 

Study of a Collection of Birds made by E. Wagner, in the Province of 
Misiones, Argentina. By A. Menegaux. 

Some Data on ‘ Yellow Liver’ in the Ostrich. By M. Aubry. 

Ardea. VII, No. 3. August, 1918. [In Dutch.] 

The Long-tailed Titmice (4githalus caudatus). By G. Wolda.— A 
study of local and individual variations. 

The Significance of the Crossing of Individuals of Different Linnzan 
Species in the Origin of our Domestic Forms. By H. N. Koorman.— 
Crossing of wild Species of Gallus. 


144 Recent Literature. . Kees 


Ornithological Articles in Other Journals. 


Shufeldt, R. W. Our Big Colonial Eagle— Terror of the Monkeys 
of the Philippines. (American Forestry, September, 1918)— On Pithe- 
cophaga jeffreyi, with illustration of the head and foot natural size. 

Oberholser, H. C. The Scientific Name of the Passenger Pigeon. 
(Science, November 1, 1918).— Columba canadensis Linn. based on the 
female bird has page priority over C. migratoria of the same author, so that 
the proper name of the bird is Ectopistes canadensis. 

Clarke, John M. Alleged Rediscovery of the Passenger Pigeon. 
(Science, November 1, 1918).— At Amsterdam, N. Y., October 1, 1918, 
seen by 8S. M. Rasmussen and two students near West Galway. Mr. 
Rasmussen had however seen the species but once before. 

Thayer, Abbott H. Camouflage. (The Scientific Monthly, December, 
1918). An interesting paper on this subject. The fact should not be lost 
sight of however that the mere possibility of placing a bird or animal 
in a position where its coloration helps to conceal it, in no sense proves 
that this is a habitual pose of the animal or that this has evolved its 
pattern of coloration (cf. p. 123 antea). 

Taverner, P. A. The Gannets of Bonaventure Island. (The Ottawa 
Naturalist, May, 1918.) 

Williams, M. Y. Brief Notes on the Fauna of Lambton County, Ont. 
([bid.). 

Macnamara, Charles. The Chimney Swift. (/bid, September, 1918.) 
— An excellent article dealing especially with the study of a nest built on 
the wire guard to an open fireplace in a closed summer cottage. Illus- 
trated by photographs. 

Tothill, J.D. Diving Habit of the Spotted Sandpiper. (Jbid.) 

Baxter, Evelyn V., and Rintoul, Leonora J. Report on Scottish 
Ornithology in 1917 Including Migration. (Scottish Naturalist, July— 
August, 1918.) 

Baynes, Ernest Harold. A Ruffed Grouse as a Hostess. (Bull. Amer. 
Game Prot. Asso., July, 1918.) 

McAtee, W.L. A Suggestion for Wild Duck Farmers.  (Jbid.) 

Quarles, E. A. The Wild Turkey at Woodmont (Md.) (Ibid.)— 
With full account of breeding the birds in captivity in order to keep pre- 
serves fully stocked. 

Anderson, J. C. Further Notes on New Zealand Bird Song: Kapiti 
Island. (Trans. and Proc. New Zealand Inst., 1, pp. 282-295.) 

Duerden, J. E. Absence of Xenia in Ostrich Eggs. (Jour. of Heredity 
IX, No. 6, pp. 243-245.) — South African Ostrich Hens mated with North 


1 Some of these journals are received in exchange, others are examined in the library 
of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. The Editor is under obligations to 
Mr. J. A. G. Rehn for a list of ornithological articles contained in the accessions to the 
library from week to week. 


Vine Recent Literature, 145 


African cocks lay eggs characteristic of their own species with no sign of 
the male influence (Xenia) in the eggshells. 

Mottram, J. C., and Green, F. W. E. Some Aspects of Animal Colora- 
tion from the Point of View of Color Vision. Pt. II. (Science Progress, 
XIII, No. 5.) — Worthy of careful study by students of protective colora- 
tion. 

Collinge, W. E. The Preservation of Game Birds and its Relation to 
Agriculture. (bid.) 

Kuroda, Nagamishi. Notes on Corean and Manchurian Birds. (Annot. 
Zool. Japonensis, IX, pt. IV.) [In English.] Annotated list of 204 speci- 
mens with a distributional table of all species known from these countries. 

Wilson, F. Erasmus. An Ornithological Trip to the Nhill District. 
(Victorian Naturalist, XX XV, pp. 93-100.) 

‘Quijada, Bernardino. Birds of Chile and a Discussion of their Spanish 
Names. (Bol. del. Mus. Nac.— Santiago. X, pp. 5-27.) — Twenty- 
eight species. 

Oberholser, H. ©. Mutanda Ornithologica, IV. (Proc. Biol. Soe. 
Wash. XXXI, pp. 125-126.) 

Owing to shifting the generic name Tanagra to the Euphonias, the 
following names become preoccupied and substitutes are here proposed. 

Euphonia vittata Scl. becomes Tanagra catasticta nom. nov. (p. 125); 
E. aurea pileata becomes T. a. cynophora n. n. (p. 126); E. violacea magna 
becomes 7’. v. pampolla n. n. (p. 126); HE. lanirostris peruviana becomes 
T. l. zopholega, n. n. (p. 126) and EF. olivacea becomes T. minuta Cab. 

Baker, E. C. Stuart. The Game Birds of India, Burma and Ceylon. 
(Jour. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soe., XXV, No. 4.) — Genera Pucrasia and 
Chrysolophus. 

Whistler, H. Notes on the Birds of Ambala District, Punjab. (Ibid.) 
— Annotated list, to be continued. 


Publications Received. Beebe, William. A Monograph of the 
Pheasants. VolumelI. Published under the Auspices of the N. Y. Zoélogi- 
cal Society by Witherby & Co., London, 1918. Price $62.50 per volume.. 
Royal quarto. 

Beebe, William. Jungle Peace. New York, Henry Holt and Company. 
1918. Price, $1.75 net. 

Chapman, Frank M. Our Winter Birds. New York, D. Appleton & 
Company. 12 mo. pp. 1-180, 1918. Price, $1.25 net. By mail, $1.35. 

Lawler, George A., and Earnshaw, Frank L. Game Laws for 1918. 
Farmers’ Bulletin 1010 United States Department of Agriculture. Octo- 
ber, 1918. 

Miller, Leo E. In the Wilds of South America. New York. Charles 
Scribners’ Sons, 8vo, pp. 1-424 1918. Price, $4.50. 

National Association of Audubon Societies. Fourteenth Annual Re- 
port (Bird-Lore XX, No. 6.) 

Riley, J. H. Annotated Catalogue of a Collection of Birds made by 


146 : Recent Literature. (fees 


Jan. 


Mr. Copley Amory, Jr., in Northeastern Siberia. (Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus. 
Vol. 54, pp. 607-626.) 

Sclater, William L. Aves. (Zoédlogical Record, Vol. LIII, 1916.) 
Price six shillings. Zodl. Soc. of London, Regent’s Park, London, N. W., 
August, 1918. 

Shufeldt, R. W. (1) The Skeleton of the ‘“ Kea Parrot” of New 
Zealand ( Nestor notabilis) (The Emu, XViII, Part I, July, 1918.) (2) On 
the Study of Sex (Alienist and Neurologist, Vol. XX XIX, No. 2.) (38) 
Our Big Colonial Eagle (American Forestry, Vol. 24, No. 297, September, 
1918.) 

Taverner, P. A. (1) Addenda to the Birds of Jasper Park, Alberta. 
(Canadian Alpine Journal, Vol. LX, 1918.) (2) The Hawks of the Canadian 
Prairie Provinces in their Relation to Agriculture. (Canada Geological 
Survey, Museum Bulletin No. 28.) Biological Series, No. 7, August, 1918, 

Van Oort, E. D. Ornithologia Neerlandica. De Vogels van Neder- 
land. Parts 1 and 2. Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, Lange Voorhout 9. 
Price, 12.50 Gld. per part. 

Wetmore, Alexander. (1) On the Anatomy of Nyctibius with Notes 
on Allied Birds. (Proc. U. 8. Nat. Mus., Vol. 54, pp. 577-586, 1918.) 
(2) Bones of Birds Collected by Theodor de Booy from Kitchen Midden 
Deposits in the Islands of St. Thomas and St. Croix (ibid., pp. 513-522, 
1918.) 


Abstract Proceedings Linnaean Society of New York, No. 30, 1917-1918. 

American Museum Journal, XVIII, No. 6, October, 1918. 

Ardea, VII, part 3, August, 1918. 

Avicultural Magazine, (3), IX, Nos. 10, 11, and 12, August, September 
and October, 1918, and X, No. 1, November, 1918. 

Bird-Lore, XX, Nos. 5 and 6, September—October and November- 
December, 1918. 

Bird Notes and News, VIII, No. 3, Autumn, 1918. 

British Birds, XII, Nos. 4, 5 and 6, September, October and November, 
1918. 

Bulletin American Game Protective Association, 7, No. 3, July, 1918. 

Bulletin British Ornithologists’ Club, No. CCXXXVI, October 29, 
1918. 

Bulletin Charleston Museum, XIV, Nos. 6 and 7, October and Novem- 
ber, 1918. 

Condor, The, XX, No. 5, September—October, 1918. 

‘Emu, The, XVIII, Parts 1 and 2, July and October, 1918. 

‘Fins, Feathers and Fur, No. 15, September, 1918. 

Ibis, The, (10), VI, No. 4, October, 1918. 

New Jersey Audubon Bulletin, No. 27, September, 1918. 

Odlogist, The, XXXV, Nos. 9, 10 and 11, September, October and 
November, 1918. 

Ottawa Naturalist, The, XXXII, Nos. 2, 3 and 4, May, October and 


mie. A 


Pie. | Correspondence. 147 


September, 1918. (Issued, September 24, October 26 and November 25, 
respectively.) 

Philippine Journal of Science, XIII, Sect. D, Nos. 4 and 5, July and 
September, 1918. 

Proceedings Acad. Nat. Sciences, Philadelphia, LXX, Part II, May- 
October, 1918. 

Revue Franeaise d’ Ornithologie, No. 112-113, August-September, 1918. 

Science, N.S., Nos. 1238-1250. 

Scottish Naturalist, The, Nos. 79-80, 81 and 82, July-August, Septem- 
ber and October, 1918. 

South Australian Ornithologist, The, III, Part 8, October, 1918. 

Wilson, Bulletin, The, XXX, No. 3, September, 1918. 


| 


CORRESPONDENCE 
Maggot Infested Birds. 


Epitor oF ‘THE AUK’: 


- Since beginning the operating of my hospital for the care and treatment 
of injured wild birds, some three or four years ago, my attention has fre- 
quently been called to the number of birds suffering from the presence of 
maggots in some of the external parts of the body. The number of avian 
sufferers has increased so greatly this season over previous years, and there 
seems to be so little known about the fly producing these worms, that I 
feel impelled to present my observations to the readers of ‘The Auk’ in 
the hopes that a complete history of the fly may be furnished by some one. 

The victims seem to be confined almost exclusively to the smaller birds, 
Yellow Warblers, Goldfinches, House Finches, Horned Larks, Vireos, 
and the House Sparrows in particular, and are fledglings, scarcely an adult 
coming to the hospital. A few Western Meadowlarks have been brought 
to me, two specimens — fledglings — yielding one hundred worms, their 
bodies presenting the appearance of having been struck by a load of shot. 
The largest number of these worm-infested creatures come from the homes 
of the House Sparrow. A friend reported that a litter of infant pigs were 
invaded by the fly and three of them died from the presence of the maggots 
burrowing into the brain through the eyes. It is reported also that a bird- 
devouring cat fell victim to the worms. 

The favorite location selected by the fly to deposit its eggs and young,— 
for the young evidently hatches in the act of deposit in the soft tissues of the 
bird and immediately burrows beneath the surface,— is on the head, near 
or in the corner of the eyes, about the neck and upper part of the wings, 


148 Correspondence. (5. A 


but the legs have been the only parts not invaded so far as my observation 
goes. The maggot eats a burrow or chimney into the flesh of its victim, 
remaining stationary and feeding upon the fluids of the helpless messmate 
until death releases it, when the horrid thing deserts the lifeless carcass and 
if not destroyed buries itself in the earth. Very little seems to be known 
about this strange fly, so far as my inquiries have extended, but the old- 
timers call it the “screw fly,” and regard it with great disfavor. 

A number of years ago a lady brought her six-month-old infant to me 
for examination and relief, stating that whilst wheeling her baby through 
the park it suddenly cried out as though in pain, and she discovered one 
of these screw flies dashing about over the child’s face. An investigation 
revealed some six or eight microscopic larve busily burrowing into the 
tender skin of the helpless victim. And this was within half an hour after 
the attack of the fly. 

In order to get some reliable data in regard to the genesis of this maggot, 
I secured a number of them and bedded them in earth, confining the recep- 
tacle in which they were to pass through their mysterious transformation 
in a box covered with close-woven wire netting which effectually pro- 
hibited the escape of the fly. 

Within a few days’ time the larvee were transformed into the chrysalis 
state, and in about three weeks two flies appeared, smaller than the ordi- 
nary green fly but resembling it in every way. These flies died before I 
could carry out further experiments, but other hatchings I trust will give 
me the desired opportunity of watching them sting a live bird. 
| Dr. J. Bequaert of the American Museum of Natural History, to whom 
the dead flies were submitted, reports as follows: 

“The flies obtained by Dr. Arnold from bird-infesting maggots belong 
to the genus Protocalliphora of the Calliphorine or bluebottle flies. In 
Europe and North America the larvee of two very closely allied species of 
Protocalliphora are known to parasitize birds. The species reared by Dr. 
Arnold from skin-boring maggots I consider to be the true Protocalliphora 
azurea (Fallen). In the Eastern United States (Pennsylvania, New York) 
and also in Europe there is an apparently different species, Protocalliphora 
sordida (Zetterstedt), whose maggots live among the feathers of young or 
even adult birds, sucking blood at intervals without boring into the skin. 
The life history and distribution of these two bird parasites are not yet 
completely known, and I should be very grateful for further information 
on the subject, especially if accompanied by maggots or flies.”’ 

Fewer maggot infested birds were brought to the hospital the past sum- 
mer than during the previous few years. 

Careful experiments proved positively that the fly would not deposit 
its eggs or larve in the dead carcasses of birds. 


W. W. Arno.p, M. D. 


Rooms 5 and 6, First Nat. Bank Building, 
Colorado Springs, Colo. 


ae | Correspondence. 149 


Evolution of Bird Song. 


Epiror or ‘Tue AUK’: 


I was much interested in the article in the October number of ‘The Auk, 
on “ Sexual Selection and Bird Song,’ by Chauncey J. Hawkins. Mr. Haw- 
kins’ conclusions are interesting, and perhaps entirely correct, but there are 
one or two weak points in his arguments, that I should like to point out. 
I have also some observations of my own, which it seems to me, point to 
the opposite conclusion, that sexual selection is the primary cause of the 
evolution of bird song. 

Bird voice and bird song are two different things, the evolutions of which 
have not necessarily been brought about in the same manner. Yet Mr. 
Hawkins, in portions of his paper relating to his own observations, does 
not carefully distinguish between voice and song. His remarks concerning 
the calls of Crows and Jays will not apply to a discussion of song. His 
observations of Robins and Goldfinches in winter are not so stated as to 
make it clear whether the birds were really singing or merely indulging in 
rather musical call-notes. No one supposes that bird-voice, call notes, 
alarm notes or notes of female to young have been evolved by sexual 
selection. But when it comes to the true song of the male bird, there seems 
to be, in my opinion, good reason to suppose that sexual selection had 
at least some part in its evolution. 

In order to avoid mistaken ideas it would be well to have a definition of 
bird song. I am not sufficiently well acquainted with the literature of 
this subject to know whether anyone has attempted such a definition, so 
I will give what I should consider a proper definition in my own words. 
Bird song is a vocal performance produced by the male bird during a definite 
season of the year, that season including the period of courtship, mating and 
nesting. Such a definition would imply that a vocal performance in which 
the female indulges regularly is not a song. Similarly a vocal performance 
not confined to a definite season of the year is not a song. Iam aware that 
there are cases where an individual female has sung the song of the male. 
I have met with a single instance of this sort in my own experience in the 
case of the Slate-colored Fox Sparrow (Passerella iliaca schistacea) (Condor 
XI, 80). I believe that such instances are merely those of individuals 
showing a tendency toward masculine traits, and that such things may 
occur in any singing species. Such isolated facts do not hurt the definition 
or make it less plain. In the same manner a single individual might sing 
outside the regular song period of its species, or might prolong its nesting 
a little beyond the limits of its period of song. So long as such occurrences 
are not general the definition of song remains clear. I doubt if anyone 
could find an authentic instance however of two individuals of a singing 
species which mated and began nesting when the male was not in full song. 

It is to be noted that musical quality is not part of the definition of song. 
Many bird calls are exceedingly musical without being songs. Such is the 


150 Correspondence. es 


Jan. 


twitter of a winter flock of Tree Sparrows (Spizella monticola). On the 
other hand some true songs, according to the definition, are sadly unmusical 
to human ears at least. The efforts of the male Yellow-headed Blackbird 
(Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus) are a good example. 

One point about bird song which seems to have been more or less neg- 
lected by most field observers, is that in many species the song differs from 
the ordinary type during the short period of courtship. This difference 
may be in the loudness or form of the song or in performances connected 
with it. Thus the Song Sparrow (Melospiza melodia) and Yellowthroat 
(Geothlypis trichas) rise in sudden ecstasy of flight song, and prolong the 
vocal performance to several seconds longer than its ordinary duration. 
The Meadowlark (Sturnella magna) also sings a flight song, but one abso- 
lutely different from the ordinary song. It is a long-continued jumble 
of short quick notes and quite closely resembles the flight-song of the 
Bobolink (Dolichonyx oryzivorus). The Robin (Planestictus migratorius), 
in the late days of April when mating is in progress, may be found singing 
with its bill closed, the notes hardly audible for more than a hundred feet. 
At such times its mate is nearly always to be found in the same tree, evi- 
dently listening with pleasure to this whispered song, which is apparently 
sung for its benefit only. This mating song of the Robin is a common 
occurrence in the life of one of our most abundant birds. I have noted it 
many times in many localities in the past fifteen years. It is common to 
both eastern and western subspecies, yet most ornithologists seem to have 
overlooked it entirely, for I have never seen mention of it in print, nor do 
I know any ornithological friend who has observed it independently. 

This fact that many birds have two songs, an ordinary song and a 
mating song, is significant in solving the problem of the origin of song. 
The ordinary song is evidently not sung from sexual impulses, but is simply 
an outburst of vocal sounds expressing great vigor and joy of living. Any 
observer will note that this song is more commonly influenced by time of 
day and weather conditions than by the presence of the bird’s mate. But 
the mating song, on the other hand, seems to be caused directly by sexual 
impulses. If we would know the primary cause of bird song in general, 
then the question to be solved is which of these forms of song is the more 
ancient. Did birds first begin to sing simply from joy of living, or were 
the first songs induced by the period of courtship, and the ordinary song 
evolved later? 

One observation which seems to give some evidence pointing to the 
greater antiquity of the mating song is furnished by the Meadowlarks 
(Sturnella magna and S. neglecta). Both the Eastern and Western 
Meadowlarks have ordinary and mating songs, the former short and most 
commonly rendered from a perch, the latter long-continued and always 
sung on the wing, frequently in pursuit of the mate. The great dif- 
ferences in the ordinary songs of these two species is too well known to 
need comment, but the similarity of their mating songs is less well known. 
In fact I have never seen these flight songs mentioned in print by any 


Caine | Correspondence. 151 
writer. The point is that save for certain introductory notes rendered 
by the western bird before it leaves its perch for the flight, the mating 
songs of the two species are almost identical. This is the more interesting 
since neither the call-notes nor alarm notes of the two species are at all alike. 
This then seems to me good evidence that before these species became sepa- 
rated, their common ancestor had a mating song, one which may have been 
derived even more anciently from a common ancestor with the Bobolink. 
Then geographical conditions separated the birds and the ordinary songs 
were slowly evolved, the eastern birds producing a high piercing whistle, 
while the western ones evolved a rich, loud thrush-like warble and this 
leads me to believe that the first songs of birds were mating songs, evolved 
by sexual selection and limited to the period of courtship only. 


AretTas A. SAUNDERS. 
Norwalk, Conn., Nov. 26, 1918. 


Australia’s Effort to Save her Bird Fauna. 


Eprtor or ‘THe AvuK’: 


In my last October Australian mail I received a most interesting letter 
from my friend Captain S. A. White, of Fulham, South Australia, where he 
holds the Local State Secretaryship for the Royal Australasian Ornitholo- 
gists’ Union. Captain White is’one of Australia’s best known ornitholo- 
gists and general naturalists. He has conducted upwards of a dozen scien- 
tific expeditions into the unexplored wilds of Southern Australia, where 
he has discovered unknown races of natives, collected many new forms of 
birds, plants, and other specimens — and, finally, published some six or 
eight booklets, illustrated by fine halftones, treating of these several expe- 
ditions. 

Among his other experiences Captain White has come to realize the fact 
that many species of Australian birds are on the very verge of extermina- 
tion; some have already gone forever, while a whole host more are becom- 
ing scarce. This pitiable state of affairs applies also to the flora over 
similar areas. 

Now Captain White has recently taken hold of this matter with great 
force and in ‘The Register’ of Adelaide invited the attention of the Com- 
monwealth to this serious state of things, especially to the rapid disappear- 
ance of many of Australia’s most beautiful and interesting species of birds 
—and we all know what a magnificent avifauna she has. 

It would appear that the Government has repeatedly broken its promises 
to set aside “Flinders Chase” on Kangaroo Island for this purpose, which 
Captain White points out is an ideal place for the purpose. In the course 
of his remarks in ‘ The Register’ for October 9, 1918, he says ‘‘ News came 
to hand by the last American mail that another 12,000 acres of woodland, 
prairie and watercourse has been added to the great forest reserves in the 


£52 Notes and News. es 


Jan. 


county of Illinois, and more than 30 miles of shore line of Lake Michigan 
has been set aside as a sanctuary for wild animals and birds. This news 
comes when we here in South Australia are fighting hard to show the 
‘powers that be’ the necessity of setting aside an area of poor country 
on Kangaroo Island for the same purpose, and shame be it to South 
Australia that there are no such parks or reserves in this State as there are 
in America and even approaching those now existing in other States of the 
Commonwealth.” 

Few countries in the world possess the bird fauna that Southern Australia 
has, as any complete ornithological work with colored plates of all the 
species will demonstrate. Even such an admirable little work as ‘An 
Australian Bird Book’ by Dr. J. A. Leach, with its plain and colored figures, 
gives a fine realization of the extraordinary avifauna of that great island 
continent. We find no Humming Birds, Vultures or Woodpeckers, to be 
sure, but an enormous array of nearly 400 species of everything else known 
to the Class Aves, including such archaic types as the Emu, Lyrebird, 
Moundbuilders, and so on. A very large percentage of the forms are of 
wonderfully varied and brilliant plumage, especially among the Kingfishers, 
Rollers, Cockatoos, Parrots, Chats, Regents, Honey-eaters, Diamond 
Birds, and many others. 

It is greatly to be hoped that the government will give heed to such 
earnest appeals to it as have been made by such distinguished and far- 
seeing ornithologists as Captain White, Dr. Leach and not a few others 
among Australian scientists and sincere lovers of all that nature offers 
in that grand old sunny continent of the Southern Hemisphere. 


R. W. SHUFELDT. 
Washington, D. C., 28th November, 1918. 


| 


NOTES AND NEWS. 


In a discussion of nomenclature in ‘The Auk’ for October, 1918, p. 508, 
the writer referred to a “‘list of proposed changes and additions to the 
‘Check List’ compiled by Dr. H. C. Oberholser and embodying the com- 
piler’s opinions upon certain of the cases.” 

This sentence seems to have been interpreted by some readers as a 
reflection upon Dr. Oberholser by charging him with inserting in a list 
of “proposed changes’’ a personal opinion as to the advisability of the 
changes. No such criticism was intended and while the writer sees no 
reason why Dr. Oberholser should not have added such opinion, neverthe- 
less, he did not do so, and the writer was misled by certain opinions already 
published elsewhere and quoted in these lists. 


| Notes and News. 153 


Our whole object was to emphasize the fact that these lists did not have 
the authority of the A. O. U. They simply represent the present status 
of nomenclature if all the proposed changes not subsequently rejected by 
others were accepted. 

The use of the words ‘‘becomes”’ and ‘‘will therefore stand”’ have misled 
others into the view that the final action had been taken, whereas Dr. 
Oberholser simply means ‘‘becomes”’ or ‘‘will therefore stand”’ provided the 
proposed change is accepted. 

It has proved impracticable to hold meetings of the Committee for the 
past several years and in order to have all proposed changes conveniently 
accessible, Dr. Oberholder has, at the request of the chairman, prepared 
these annual lists for final action when a new Check-List is prepared.— 
W.S. 


Waurer Freeman McManon, an Associate of the American Orni- 
thologists’ Union, was killed in action, in France, August 28, 1918. 

Mr. McMahon was born in Chelsea, Massachusetts, June 17, 1889. He 
attended the Shurtleff School at Chelsea and later the Lewis School at 
Roxbury. Subsequently he took a course in the School of Fine Arts, and 
studied zodlogy at Harvard University. He early developed an intense 
interest in the study of birds and for a time lectured extensively at various 
places in Massachusetts. He conducted bird exhibitions in Tremont 
Temple and the Mechanics’ Building in Boston. For two years he was 
secretary to Edward H. Forbush, State Ornithologist of Massachusetts, 
during which time he conducted much of the correspondence of the office 
and drew many of the illustrations used in Mr. Forbush’s bulletins. He 
served a year as secretary of the Massachusetts Game Protective Associa- 
tion with an office in Boston. In January, 1917, he was called to the office 
of the National Association of Audubon Societies in New York, where in a 
short time he became Chief Clerk. The bird walks he conducted in Central 
Park quickly became well known, and many bird-lovers in the City thus 
made his acquaintance. He was a member of the Linnean Society and 
regularly attended its meetings. He left the Association on March 15,. 
1918, to enter the Army and in less than sixty days sailed for France. He 
Saw more than a month’s service in the front lines and as ‘‘scout”’ for his: 
platoon was engaged in a number of dangerous enterprises. It was while: 
undertaking a desperate mission in this capacity that he met his death from 
the bullet of a German sniper while crossing No-man’s Land. Walter 
McMahon was not only a forceful character, but he possessed, to an unusual 
degree, an innate refinement and a quiet courtesy that particularly endeared 
him to all with whom he was associated.— T. G. P. 


Dove.as Ciirrorp Mapsort, at the time a private in the 79th Com- 
pany, 6th Regiment of the United States Marine Corps, was killed in action 
to the north of Chateau Thierry, France, September 15, 1918. Mabbott 
has been an Associate of the American Ornithologists’ Union since 1916 


154 Notes and News. en 


Jan. 


and a member of the United States Biological Survey since 1915. He was 
born at Arena, Iowa County, Wisconsin, March 12, 1893, and was educated 
in the public schools of that state, graduating from the High School at 
Baraboo. While in Washington, D. C., in order further to fit himself for 
his official work, he took a special course in zodlogy at George Washington 
University. He was self-taught in natural history, however, and before 
coming to the Biological Survey creditably passed two of its examinations, 
one of which required special knowledge of mammals, the other of birds. 
In the Biological Survey, he was an assistant in economic ornithology, and 
was especially trained to investigate the food habits of wild ducks. He 
made good progress in this work and left with the Survey, ready for publi- 
cation, three manuscripts treating the food habits respectively of the three 
species of Teals, of the Gadwall and Widgeon, and of the Pintail and Wood- 
duck. In the summer of 1917 Mabbott helped to make a survey of the 
resources in food for wild fowl of the lakes of North Dakota. He served 
in the National Guard of the District of Columbia in 1916 when trouble 
with Mexico threatened, and was honorably discharged. He enlisted for 
service in the present war in February 1918, as soon as he could complete 
reports on the North Dakota work and on the groups of wild ducks studied. 
He received ten weeks’ training at Paris Island, South Carolina, and was sent 
at once to France. He had a rifle blown from his hand by a bursting shell, 
received hospital treatment for shell shock and had only recently recovered 
and resumed his place in the ranks at the time he was killed. His last 
words exhorted his comrades to hold the ground gained. Mabbott enlisted 
in the Marines to get quick action and he got it, and he will ever be num- 
bered among the heroic band that stopped the German drive on Paris. In 
his office work Mabbott showed tireless application and he had become very 
efficient in his special line. Out of doors he was a splendid companion with 
a keen eye and ear for nature’s wonders. While of an independent nature 
and original turn of mind, in character he was a most likable, straightfor- 
ward and wholesome boy. ‘To the writer of these lines he was not only an 
irreplaceable assistant and successor in an especially valued line of work, 
but a sincere and manly young friend whose loss leaves a definite void.— 
W.L. M. 


Pror. Davin Ernest Lantz, Assistant Biologist in the Biological 
Survey since 1904, and an Associate of the American Ornithologists’ Union 
since 1885, died of pneumonia at his home in Washington, D. C., Oct. 7, 
1918, after an illness of only a week. He was born at Thompsontown, 
Pa., Mar. 1, 1855, and at the time of his death was in his 64th year. 

After graduating at the State Normal School at Bloomsburg, Pa., 
Prof. Lantz became principal of schools at Mifflintown, Pa., a position 
which he occupied two years. In 1878 he moved to Kansas where during 
a residence of a quarter of a century he became widely known in educational 
and scientific circles. He served as superintendent of schools at Man- 
hattan, professor of mathematics in the State Agricultural College for 


oy | Notes and News. 155 


fourteen years, and later as principal of the Dickinson County High School, 
and field agent of the Kansas Agricultural Experiment Station. 

In 1904 he received an appointment in the U.S. Department of Agricul- 
ture and has since devoted his attention mainly to investigations on 
mammals of economic importance. He published extensively on economic 
mammalogy and was the author of twenty or more Farmers’ bulletins and 
a number of other reports and special papers. 

During his residence in Kansas he published about thirty-five papers and 
short notes on birds and added two species to the state list, the Purple 
Gallinule in 1893 and the Roseate Spoonbill in 1900. His most important 
ornithological contributions were his ‘List of Birds in the Goss Collection’ 
and his ‘Review of Kansas Ornithology.’ The latter paper contained a 
unique feature in the ‘ Historical List’ showing the date when each species 
was first recorded from the state. 

Prof. Lantz was widely known in scientific circles in Kansas and in 
Washington. He was a life member of the Kansas State Horticultural 
Society, the Kansas Academy of Science, and served as secretary and 
president of the Academy of Science. He was a member of the Biological 
Society of Washington and for five years filled the office of recording 
secretary. When the ‘Ten Year Index of The Auk’ was in course of 
preparation he served on the committee and took an active part in the work. 

He is survived by his wife, Mrs. Clara Deen Lantz, and two daughters. 
Mrs. Frank S. Evans of Baltimore, Md., and Mrs. J. N. Simmons of Victor, 
Colo.— T. S. P. 


CuHeck Lists.— In view of the invitation extended by the B. O. U. 
to the A. O. U. to codperate in the preparation of a series of check lists of 
the birds of the principal zodlogical regions of the world( see ‘The Auk,’ 
Oct. 1918, p. 509), it is interesting to recall what has already been done 
by the A. O. U., the B. O. U., and the R. A. O. U. and some of their 
members in the publication of check lists. 

The A. O. U. has published an official ‘Check-List of North American 
Birds’ including the species and subspecies which occur north of the Gulf of 
Mexico and the Rio Grande and also on the peninsula of Lower California. 
The first edition appeared in 1886 and two revised editions have’ since 
been issued, one in 1895 and the last in 1910. Before the organization of 
the A. O. U. several check lists of North American birds were published 
by individual authors who later became members of the Union and took 
part in the preparation of its first Check-List. Of these the first was 
published by Baird in 1858, the second by Coues in 1873 with an elaborately 
annotated revised edition in 1882, and the third by Ridgway in 1881. The 
check lists of Baird and Ridgway were issued by the Smithsonian Insti- 
tution and National Museum and those of Coues were private publications. 

The official check list of the British Ornithologists’ Union has been 
limited to two editions of the ‘List of British Birds,’ one of which appeared 


156 Notes and News. [fae 


Jan. 


in 1883 and the other a revised edition! in 1915. In 1912 a ‘Hand-List. 
of British Birds’? was published independently by Hartert, Jourdain, 
Ticehurst, and Witherby, all of whom were members of the B. O. U. 
Several earlier lists have been published covering the same ground, among 
which the more important are the ‘Zodélogist List’ of 1870, Wharton’s: 
List of 1877, Col. Irby’s ‘Key List’ of 1892, and Seebohm’s ‘Geographic 
Distribution of British Birds,’ 1893. 

The Royal Australasian Ornithologists’ Union in 1913 published the 
result of ten years’ work of its committee in the form of an ‘Official Check- 
List of the Birds of Australia.’* In addition to this there are at least three 
other check lists all published by Gregory M. Mathews during the last 
decade, viz. a ‘Hand-list of the Birds of Australasia,’ 1908, in “The Emu,’ 
based on Sharpe’s ‘Hand List’; a ‘Reference-list to the Birds of Australia” 
in ‘Novitates Zodlogice,’ XVIII, 1912; and a ‘List of the Birds of Australia,’ 
1913. Australia is thus unusually well supplied with recent lists of its 
birds. 

Of lists of birds of other regions prepared by members of the Ornitholo- 
gists’ Unions several deserve mention in this connection. On the birds of 
America Sclater and Salvin’s ‘Nomenclator Avium Neotropicalium,’ 
1873, as its name indicates, includes the birds of the Neotropical region; 
Brabourne and Chubb’s ‘Birds of South America’ appeared in 1912;4 
while Cory has begun the publication of an extensive ‘Catalogue of Birds 
of the Americas,’ ® covering the region from Patagonia to the North Pole — 
of this the second volume (the only one thus far issued) was published 
in 1918. For, Europe, we have among others the ‘List of the Birds of 
Europe’ by J. H. Blasius, reprinted from the German in 1862, and Dresser’s 
‘List of European Birds’ which bears the date of 1881. For the region 
comprising the islands of the Pacific Ocean Wiglesworth’s ‘Aves Poly- 
nesize,’ 1891, is the most comprehensive list. 

Among check lists of the birds of the world are G. R. Gray’s ® ‘Hand-List 
of Genera and Species of Birds,’ in three parts, 1869-71; Boucard’s ‘Cata- 
logus Avium,’ 1876; and Sharpe’s ‘Hand-List of the Genera and Species 
of Birds’ in five volumes, 1899-1909. 

This brief enumeration of only a few of the more important lists of birds 
of extensive regions includes three check lists that are world-wide in 
scope, one covering North and South America, seven North America, 
two South America, two Europe, seven the British Isles, four Australia, 
and one Polynesia. Some of these lists now require revision and there is 
room for greater uniformity of treatment of the subject and more catalogues 
of birds of natural zodlogical areas such as Australia, the Neotropical 


1 For a review see The Auk, XXXII, p. 243, 1915. 
2 For a review see The Auk, X XIX, p. 407, 1912. 

3 For a review see The Auk, XXX, p. 445, 1913. 

+ For a review see The Auk, XXX, p. 286, 1913. 

5 For a review see The Auk, XX XV, p. 365, 1918. 
6G. R. Gray was not a member of the B. O. U. 


arts NF] Notes and News. 157 


Region, and Polynesia. To meet these requirements is in part the object 
of the proposed ‘Systema Avium.’— T. S. P. 


AN interesting collection of paintings of extinct birds or those in danger 
of extinction is being made by the New York Zodélogical Society. The 
three paintings now exhibited in the Administration Building in the 
Zoélogical Park are the work of Robert Bruce Horsfall and include the 
Great Auk, Pallas’ Cormorant, and the California Condor. 


AccorpDINnG to ‘The Emu’ efforts are now being made to raise a sufficient 
fund to purchase and transfer from England to Australia the great col- 
lection of Australian birds belonging to Gregory M. Mathews. This is 
the first large collection of birds which has been offered for sale since the 


- collection of the late Count Hans von Berlepsch was sold a few years ago. 


The latter collection was especially rich in South American species. 


Dr. T. S. Patmer has prepared an interesting historical account of the 
American Ornithologists’ Union, with portraits of the founders and some 
leading members, which appeared in ‘The American Museum Journal’ 
(XVIII, No. 6, November, 1918). The object was to arouse interest in 
and to advertise the society in the hope of securing additional members. 
A few copies are available should members desire to secure them from him. 


Durine the year 1918 the Union gained 17 life members as follows: 
Three Fellows — Eugene P. Bicknell, Richard C. McGregor, and T. 8. 
Palmer; two Members — F. H. Kennard and Geo. Shiras 3d; and 12 
Associates — Franklin Brandreth, Mrs. Edmund Bridge, Dudley B. Fay, 
Harry Harris, Harold Herrick, John B. Henderson, Mrs. Ella M. O. 
Marshall, Miss Elizabeth D. Palmer, Edward L. Parker, L. H. Vandergrift, 
Gordon B. Wellman and William P. Wharton. 


WE learn with much regret of the retirement of Mr. W. R. Ogilvie-Grant 
from his post in the British Museum (Natural History), on account of ill 
health. According to ‘The Ibis,’ Mr. Grant became connected with the 
museum in 1882 and began his work in the Bird Room in 1885, becoming 
Assistant Keeper of the Zodlogical Department in 1913. While serving 
in outer defences of London, in August 1916, in the Ist County of London 
Volunteer Regiment, he received a sunstroke from the effects of which he 
has suffered ever since. By absolute rest in the quiet of the country, it is 
hoped he may soon regain his health. 


BEGINNING with the April 1918 issue ‘The Ottawa Naturalist’ has 
appeared in a much improved form, with a larger page and new cover. 
It was established in 1887 by the Ottawa Field Naturalists’ Club and is 
therefore one of the oldest natural history periodicals in North America. 
Judging by the recent issues the improvement extends also to the subject 
matter and it bids fair to hold and strengthen its honorable place in scien- 
tifie literature. 


. 


158 Notes and News. leas 


THE CHICAGO ORNITHOLOGICAL Society founded in December, 1912, by 
Dr. R. M. Strong continues as an active organization, meeting on the 
second Tuesday of each month. The officers for the current year are 
Edward R. Ford, President; Dr. Alfred Lewy, First Vice President; 
Prof. C. W. G. Eifrig, Second Vice President; Miss Marian Fairman, 
Secretary-Treasurer, address 4744 Kenwood Ave., Chicago, IIl. 


AN interesting exhibit of pictures illustrating protective coloration in 
nature and concerned with the origin of camouflage in war, by Abbott H. 
and Gerald H. Thayer, was held in the Corcoran Gallery of Art, Washing- 
ton, D. C., October 26 to November 17, 1918. 


Earty in 1920 the Nuttall Ornithological Club proposes to issue a — 
supplement to its Memoir ITI, ‘The Birds of Essex County ’(Massachusetts) 
by Charles Wendell Townsend, M. D., which was published in 1905. 

The author will be glad to receive any notes of interest on the birds of 
this county, including earlier or later dates than those in the original 
memoir, in order to make the supplement as complete and valuable as 
possible. These notes should reach him on or before November 1, 1918. 
Address 98 Pinckney St., Boston, Mass. 


A terTer of Mr. M. Rasmusson describing the presence of a flock of 
supposed Wild Pigeons in Saratoga County, N. Y., October 1, 1918, has 
been given wide publicity by the N. Y. State Museum at Albany and was 
published in ‘Science’ and doubtless elsewhere. While it is of course 
‘impossible to satisfactorily verify such observations, attention might be 
called to the statement of the observer that he had seen the bird but once 
before, which was about twenty years ago near Ithaca. Even that obser- 
vation was a very late one if the date is correctly given. 

Another observation of alleged Passenger Pigeons by John M. Crampton, 
Supt. of the Conn. State Board of Fisheries and Game, in May, 1918, at 
Southington, Conn., was published in ‘The Conservationist’ (Albany, 
N. Y.), August, 1918. It seems more convincing than the other, as Mr. 
Crampton was familiar with the birds from boyhood, but again positive 
proof is impossible, and we have to consider several positive records of 
men who had killed hundreds of pigeons, mistaking doves for pigeons in 
later years! 


CALLED TO THE CoLors.— During the past year lists of the members of 
the A. O. U. in military and naval service have been published in each 
number of ‘The Auk’ as the information was received. It now seems 
desirable to present in one place the names of all these members in order 
to show the active part taken by the American Ornithologists’ Union in 
the great world war. 

The following list has been corrected to Nov. 11, 1918, the date of the 
signing of the armistice. It is still incomplete and in some cases (as shown 
by months in parentheses), the latest information available is now out of 


poeex ‘al Notes and News. 159 


date. Future editions of the list are likely to consist mainly of corrections 
which should be sent to the Secretary so that the service record of the 
Union may be made as complete as possible. 


Killed tw¥Action. 


Duntop, Eric Brooks, Winnipeg, Man., Mar. 19, 1917. 
-McManon, Watrrer Freeman, New York City, Aug. 28, 1918. 
Massott, Douaias CiirForD, Washington, D. C., Sept. 15, 1918. 


Apams, Dr. Z. B., Brookline, Mass. Am. Exped. Forces, in France. 

ANDERSON, Ernest MELVILLE, Esquimalt, B. C. Private A Co., 
R. C. R., B. C. Special Service Unit, Quebec. 

AntTHoNy, Harotp Eimer, New York City. Capt. 309th Field 
Artillery, Camp Lewis, American Lake, Wash. 

Bascock, Dr. H. L., Dedham, Mass. Lieut. Med. Reserve Corps. 

Baker, JoHN Hopkinson, Dayton, O. Lieut. Aviation Corps, 
Am. Exped. Forces, in France. 

Breretotp, Dr. Wittram Harry, Denver, Colo. Major Medical 
Corps, U. 8. General Hospital No. 21, Denver, Colo. 

Boyitr, HowartuH STantey, New York City. Ph. M. 3, U.S. Naval 
Base Hospital Unit 1, Am. Exped. Forces, in France. 

BRADLEE, THOMAS STEVENSON, Boston, Mass. Major, Asst. to Dept. 
Quartermaster in charge of Personnel & Transportation Division, 
Governor’s Island, N. Y. 

Brirren, Dr. Grorce StpNey, Syracuse, N. Y. Captain Medical 
Corps, Am. Exped. Forces, in France. 

Brooks, AtuaNn [Cyrit], Okanagan Landing, B. C. Major 11th 
Canadian Infantry Brigade H. Q., Brit. Exped. Forces, in France. 
Brooxs, WINTHROP SPRAGUE, Boston, Mass. Ensign in the Navy 

(Retired). 

Burueicn, Tuomas D., Pittsburgh, Pa. 20th Engineers (Forest), 
in France. 

Cann, AtviIn Ropert, Chicago, Ill. Laboratory work in Base Hos- 
pital, in France. 

Cuapin, James Paut, New York City. 1st Lieut., care of R. R. & 
C., A. P. O. No. 757, Am. Exped. Forces, in France. 

Cuapman, Dr. Frank Micnter, New York City. Red Cross Com- 
missioner, South America. 

CuapmMaNn, Mrs. Frank Micuter, New York City. In Red Cross 
work, South America. 

CrosBy, MAUNSELL SHIEFFELIN, Rhinebeck, N. Y. Captain Quarter- 
master Corps, Am. Exped. Forces, in France. 


Jan. 


160 Notes and News. (Fae 


Decker, Harotp Kennetu, New Brighton, N. Y. In Naval Service, 
66 Martin St., Cambridge, Mass. 

Dersy, Dr. Ricuarp, New York City. Major, Medical Corps, Am. 
Exped. Forces, in France. 

Dicr, Lez Raymonp, Washington, D. C. Private Yale Army 
Laboratory School, New Haven, Conn. 

Eastman, Francis B. Major 344th Infantry, Camp Grant, Rock- 
ford, ll. (Mar., 1918). 

Fay, Samurt Prescorr, Boston, Mass., Ist Lieut., Camp Devens, 
Ayer, Mass. (Mar. 1918). 

Fowter, Freperick Haun, Palo Alto, Calif. Captain of Engineers, 
Office Chief of Engineers, Washington, D. C. 

Fry, Rev. Henry Jacos, Montclair, N. J. Chaplain, U. 8S. Navy. 

GoLpMAN, Epwarp ALronso, Washington, D. C., Major Sanitary 
Corps, A. P. O. No. 721, Am. Exped. Forces, in France. 

Goopricu, Miss Jutier TuHroposta, Chicago, Ill. In war work in 
France. 
Griscom, Luptow, New York City. 2d Lieut., Service des Accredités, 
Credit-Lyonnais, Paris, France. 
Hacar, Joseph ArcuiBaLp, Newtonville, Mass. 2d Lieut. Infantry, 
Camp Devens, Ayer, Mass. (Mar. 1918). 

Haty, Frank Grecory. Signal Corps School of Meteorology, 32d 
Service Co., College Station, Texas. 

Harper, Francis, Washington, D. C. 1st Lieut., Sanitary Corps, 
Am. Exped. Forces, in France. 

Hotr Ernest Gousan, Washington, D. C. 2d Lieut. Infantry, 10th 
Co., 3rd Battalion, 152d Depot Brigade, Camp Upton, N. Y. 

KirrrepGr, Josep Jr., Missoula, Mont. 1st Lieut. 10th Engineers 
(Forest) Am. Exped. Forces, in France. 

Latnc, Hamiuron Mack, Portland, Ore. Instructional Section, 
School of Aerial Gunnery, Beamsville, Ont. 

LEISTER, CLAUDE Wiuuarp, Ithaca, N. Y. Private Hdq. Co., 110th 
Infantry, Am. Exped. Forces, in France. 

Lewis, Harrison Furnt, Yarmouth, N.S. District Auditor, M. D., 
No. 5, P. O. Box No. 6, Quebec, P. Q. 

Lincoitn, Freperick Cuarues, Denver, Colo. Acting Sergeant, 
Calif. 


Pigeon Section 293d Aero Squadron, March Field, Riverside, . 


Lorine, Joun ALDEN, Owego, N. Y. Ist Lieut. of Ordnance, Texas. 

Maptes, James Comiy, Port Chester, N. Y. Seaman in the Navy 
Section Base No. 1, Third District, New Haven, Conn. 

Marx, Epwarp J. F., Easton, Pa. Capt. Battery B, 16th Field 
Artillery, Camp Greene, N. C. (Mar. 1918). 

Marrern, Epwin 8S. Am. Exped. Forces, in France. 

Mayrietp, Dr. Grorcr R., Nashville, Tenn. Am. Exped. Forces, 
in France. 


Vol. inna 
1919 


Notes and News. 161 


McCook, Puitie James, New York City. Major, Adjutant 9th 
Brigade, Am. Exped. Forces, in France. (Wounded in action Noy. 
6, 1918. Convalescing in Base Hospital No. 6, in Bordeaux.) 

MercaLr, FRANKLIN Post. Lieut. Signal Corps. Care Guarantee 
Trust Co., New York and Paris. In France. 

Meyer, Greorce Raupo, Captain Coast Artillery Corps, Fort 
Kamehameha, H. I. 

Meyer, Miss Hetorse, Lenox, Mass. Red Cross, in France. 

MitrcuHett, Dr. Water Iuncericu, Wichita, Kans. Captain 
Medical Corps, Camp Funston, Kans. 

Moriz, Ovaus JoHan, Moorhead, Minn. Cadet Army Balloon 
School, Fort Omaha, Nebr. 

Nose, GLADWYN KiNasLEy, Cambridge, Mass. Ensign U.S. Navy. 

Oupys, Henry, Silver Spring, Md. Asst. Auditor War Dept., in 
France. 

Overton, Dr. Frank, Patchogue, N. Y. Major Medical Corps, 
Camp Upton, N. Y. 

Paumer, R. H., Pocatello, Idaho. Reserve Officers Training Corps, 
No. 9, Presidio, Calif. (Nov. 1917). 

PANGBURN, CiirForD Hayes, New Haven, Conn. Formerly Acting 
Lieut. Red Cross in France. 

Perper, Dr. Witiiam, Philadelphia, Pa. Lieut. Col. Medical 
Reserve Corps, Philadelphia, Pa. 

Prerers, JAMES Ler, Harvard, Mass. 2d Lieut. Quartermaster’s 
Corps, Am. Exped. Forces, in France. 

Puituirs, Dr. JoHN CHARLES, Wenham, Mass. Medical Corps, 
Fort Benjamin Harrison, Indianapolis, Ind. (Dee. 1917). 

Pootr, Earut L., Reading, Pa. Private Signal Corps, Advance 
Supply Depot No. 1, A. P. O. 712, Am. Exped. Forces, in 
France. 

Rosrnson, Wirt. Colonel, U.S. Military Academy, West Point, N. Y. 

Roaers, CHARLES Henry, New York City. Sergeant Co. B, 31st 
Machine Gun Battalion, 11th Division, Camp Meade, Md. 

SANBORN, CoLin CAMPBELL, Evanston, Ill. Battery C, 149th Artil- 
lery, Am. Exped. Forces, in France. 

ScHAEFER, Oscar FrepERICK, Geneva, N. Y. 10th Engineers 
(Forest), Am. Exped. Forces, in France. 

SuHeiron, ALFRED Cooper, Eugene, Ore. 2d Lieut. Sanitary Corps. 
831 5th St., Santa Rosa, Calif. 

SHUFELDT, Dr. Ropert Witson, Washington, D.C. Major Medical 
Corps, Army Medical Museum, Washington, D. C. 

Smita, Lester Wueapon, Meriden, Conn. First Class Seaman, 
Naval Reserve, in France. 

Struson, Dr. ArtHur M., Washington, D. C. Sanitary Officer, 
2d Naval District, War College, Newport, R. I. 

Stopparp, Hersert Ler, Chicago, Ill. Am. Exped. Forces, in 
France. 


162 Nai and News. eee 


Jan, 


Srorer, Tracy Irwin, Berkeley, Calif. First Lieut. Sanitary Corps,. 
Laboratory Car ‘Metchnikoff,’ Fort Sam Houston, Texas. 

Sweeney, JosepH A., Halsey, Nebr. Private Co. E, 2d Battalion, 
20th Engineers (Forest), Am. Exped. Forces, in France. 

Tyier, Dr. Winsor M., Lexington, Mass. Captain Medical Reserve 
Corps, Fort Adams, Newport, R. I. 

Wiucox THomas Ferpinanp, New York City. Capt. in Air Service, 
New York City. 

Woop, Dr. Casrzy ALBERT, Chicago, Ill. Lieut., Medical Corps,. 
7 West Madison St., Chicago, Ill. 

Woop, GreorcE B., Philadelphia, Pa. Am. Exped. Forces, in France. 

Younc, Joun Pavut, Youngstown, O. Captain, 5th Co., Coast 
Artillery Corps, Fort Hancock, Sandy Hook, N. J. 


JusT as we go to press comes the sad news of the death, on January 6, 
1919, of Theodore Roosevelt. So prominently and continuously has he 
figured in the history of our Country during his active life, and so great 
have been his services to humanity, that his attainments as a naturalist 
have been completely overshadowed. Only a few have appreciated the 
breadth of his knowledge in the field of science or realized that he had there 
established a lasting reputation wholly independent of his greater fame. 


A member of the Nuttall Ornithological Club, during his college days: 


at Cambridge, and an Associate of the American Ornithologists’ Union 
from 1888 to 1902, he was, throughout his life, an active and accurate 
student of birds. As a hunter he was not content with the mere accumu- 
lation of trophies or specimens but invariably obtained valuable and 
original information on the habits of the animals, and his numerous con- 
tributions to ornithology and mammalogy will stand for all time as works 
of reference. 

On certain special subjects, such as animal coloration, he was an author- 
ity and his intimate knowledge of the literature and the extent of his 
personal observations were a revelation to those who were privileged to 
discuss them with him. 

In the United States National Museum and the American Museum of 
Natural History his name will be forever perpetuated in connection with 
the great African and South American collections which he was largely 
instrumental in securing. 

Those who were in a position to judge this side of the man will realize 
that it was only the eminence of Roosevelt the statesman and the constant 


call to public service, that obscured the reputation and checked the further 


development of Roosevelt the naturalist. 


7 i j 
iy 
Z fi) ? _ 1 
; gia pond i. : - 7 
me _ oy 
‘ \ 
7 
! 
‘ 
‘ 
\ 
: 
4 


Anerian Cruthlcists’ Ui 
Pheck-List oc American 


Cloth, 8vo, pp. 430 and two maps of North America, 
one a colored, faunal zone map, and one a locality map. 
The first authoritative and complete list of North 
American Birds published since the second edition of 
the Check-List in 1895. The ranges of species and 
geographical races have been carefully revised and 
greatly extended, and the names conform to the latest 
rulings of the A. O. U. Committee on Nomenclature. 
The numbering of the species is the same as in the 
second edition. Price, including postage, $3.00. 


POCKET EDITION 


A pocket Check-List (33 by 52 inches) of North 
American Birds with only the numbers and the scientific 
and popular names. Alternate pages blank for the 
insertion of notes. Flexible covers. Price, including 
postage, 30 cents. 


Address JONATHAN DWIGHT 


134 W. 7 Ist St New York City 


Ss 


PUBLICATIONS OF THE 


AMERICAN ORNITHOLOGISTS’ UNION | 


FOR SALE AT THE FOLLOWING PRICES: 


The Auk. Complete set, Volumes I-XXXYV, (1884-1918) in origi- — 
nal covers, $117.00. Volumes I-VI are sold only with complete — 
sets, other volumes, $3.00 each; 75 cents for single numbers. 


Index to The Auk (Vols. I-X XVII, 1884-1900) and Bulletin of the _ 
Nuttall Ornithological Club (Vols. I-VIII, 1876-1883), 8vo, pp. 
vii + 426, 1908. Cloth, $3.75 post-paid; paper, $3.25. a 


Index to The Auk (Vols. XXVITI-XXXVII, 1901-1910), 8vo, pp. 
xviii +250; 1915.. Cloth, $3.00; paper, $2.00. 


Check-List of North American Birds. Third edition, revised. | 


1910. Cloth, 8vo, pp. 426, and 2 maps. $3.00. Second edition, _ 
revised, 1895. Cloth, 8vo, pp. xi + 372. $1.15. Original edition 
1886. Out of print. ae TN 


Abridged Check-List of North American Birds. 1889. (Abridged 
and revised from the original edition). Paper, 8vo, pp. 71, printed 
on one side of the page. 25 cents. 


Pocket Check-List of North American Birds. (Abridged from 
the third edition). Flexible cover, 3} X 5% inches. 30 cents. 


Code of Nomenclature. Revised edition, 1908. Paper, 8vo, pp. 
Ixxxv. 50 cents. 
Original edition, 1892. Paper, 8vo, pp. iv + 72. 25 cents. . 


~ 


A. O. U. Official Badge. An attractive gold and blue enamel 
pin, with Auk design, for use at meetings or on other 
occasions. Post-paid 50 cents. 


Address JONATHAN DWIGHT 


134 W. 7Ist St., New York, N. Y. 


» loll, 


The Cosmos Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. 


| old | CONTINUATION OF THE he 


WarariyS BULLETIN OF THE NUTTALL ORNITHOLOGICAL CLUB 2 y,S*es, 
H Quarterly Journal of Ornithology 
APRIL, 1919 No. 2 


PUBLISHED BY 


i The American Ornithologists’ Union 


CAMBRIDGE, MASS. 


Entered as second-class mail matter in the Post Office at Boston, Mass. 
‘* Acceptance for mailing at special rate of postage provided for in Section 
1103, Act of October 3, 1917, authorized on September 23, 1918.” 


CONTENTS 


Mrs. Ouive THorNE Mitier. By Florence Merriam Bailey. (Plate VII.) . 163 
An EXPERIENCE with Hornep GrREBES (Colymbus auritus). By Alexander D. 
DuBois. (Plates VIII-X.) . .. , , f 5 ae a Oe i ‘ 170 
pstaphith Notes on Harris’s Sparrow (Zonotrichia querula). By Harry 
arris ‘ ' 4 ; : : i : k Fk al i 1 A : 180 
Noves ON THE STRUCTURE OF THE PALATE IN IcTERIDR. By Alexander Wetmore 190 
THE Crow IN Cotorapvo. By W. H. Bergtold ‘ 4 ; : A 198 
Winter Rosins 1n Nova Scorra. By Harrison F. Lewis 205 


REMARKS ON BeEEBE's ‘Tropicat Wiup Lire.’ By Thomas E. Penard . 
ProspiemMs SuGGEesTED BY NESTS OF WARBLERS OF THE GENUS DeNpROIcA. By 
John Treadwell Nichols 2 4 A t 3 : . : 
On THE PorpuLtaR Names or Birps. By Ernest Thompson Seton : 4 
Tre Reauity or Species. By Leverett Mills Loomis 2 P : - | 235 
GEOGRAPHICAL VARIATION IN THE BLACK-THROATED Loons. By A. C. Bent 4 238 
Reasons FOR DiscarRDING A Proposep Race or THE GuLaucous GuLu (Larus ; 
hyperboreus). By Jonathan Dwight, M. D. : 3 - = 2 ; 242 
Tue Birps or THE Rep DEER River, ALBERTA. By P. A. Taverner R ; 
FRourts ANNUAL List oF ProposED CHANGES IN THE A. O. U. CHEcK-LIST OF 
Norte AMERICAN Birps. By Harry C. Oberholser . : : : 
New Forms or South AMERICAN BIRDS AND Proposep NEw SUBGENERA. By: 
Charles B. Cory A £ A r . & s A , E ; s 27S AN 
GENERAL Nores.— Procellariide versus Hydrobatide, 276; Long-tailed Jaeger in 
Indiana, 276; Larus canus brachyrhynchus in Wyoming, 276;  Polysticta- Eyton | 
versus Stellaris Bonaparte, 277; Further Record of the European Widgeon at Madi- 
son, Wis., 277; A Late Record for Rallus elegans for Maine, 277; The Proper Name 
of the Ruff, 278; Heteractitis versus Heteroscelus, 278; The Status of Charadrius 
rubricollis Gmelin, 279; A Self-tamed Ruffed Grouse. 279; Unusual Contents of a Mourn- 
ing Dove's Nest, 281; Mourning Dove Wintering in Vermont, 282; Thrasaetos 
versus Harpia, 282; The Status of the Generic Name Archibuteo, 282; Harris’s 
Hawk (Parabuteo unicinctus harrisi) in Kansas, 283; The Proper Name for the Texas 
Barred Owl, 283; Concerning a Note of the Long-eared Owl, 283; The Short-eared 
Owl Breeding on Nantucket, 284; Early Occurrence of the Snowy Owl and the Pine 
Grosbeak in Monroe County, New York, 285; The Deep Plantar Tendons in the 
Puff-birds, Jacamars and their Allies, 285; The Status of the Genus Hypocentor 
Cabanis, 286; A Correction Involving Some Juncos, 287; An Additional Record — 
of Ammodramus savannarum bimaculutus in Eastern Washington, 287; The Dick- 
cisselin New Hampshire, 288; Early Nesting of the Loggerhead Shrike, 288; A 
Note on the Decrease of the Carolina Wren near Washington, D. C., 289; The Affini- 
ties of Chamethlypis, 290; Blue-winged Warbler Feeding a Young Field Sparrow, 
291; The Blue-winged Warbler near Boston, 292; Nashville Warbler (Vermivora 
ruficapilla) in New York in Winter, 293; Four Rare Birds in Sussex County, New 
Jersey, 293; Notes from a Connecticut Pine Swamp, 293; The Name eyrthrogaster, 294; 
Constant Difference in Relative Proportions of Parts as a Specific Character, 
295; ‘‘Off’’ Flavors of Wildfowl, 296. : 


Recent Lirprature.— ‘The Gare Birds of California,’ 297; Mathews’ ‘The Birds of 
Australia, 299; De Fenis on Bird Song in its Relation to Music, 300; Dwight on a 
New Gull, 301; McAtee on the Food Habits of the Mallard Ducks, 301; Stone on 
Birds of the Canal Zone, 302; Shufeldt on the Young Hoatzin, 302; Riley on Celebes 
Birds, 302; Oberholser’s ‘Mutanda Ornithologica V,’ 303; Miller’s ‘Birds of Lewis- 
-ton-Auburn and Vicinity,’ 303; Recent Papers by Bangs, 304; Economic Ornithology 
in Recent Entomological Publications, 304; The Ornithological Journals, 307; Orni- 
thological Articles in Other Journals, 312; Publications Received, 314. 


CorRESPONDENCE.— Identifications (Characters vs. Geography), 316. 


Nores anp News.— Obituary: Frederick DuCane Godman, 319; Robert Day Hoyt, 319; 
The Mailliard Collection, 320; Recent Expeditions, 321; The Flemming Collection, 
321: Rare Birds in the Philadelphia Zoo, 321; Meeting of the R. A. O. U., 322; 
U. S. National Museum Collection, 322; A. O. U. Check-List, 322; New National 
Parks, 322; Geographic Distribution of A. O. U. Membership, 323; The Migratory 
Bird Law, 323; The Delaware Valley Ornithological Club, 323: Common Names of 
Birds, 324; Birds of Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Delaware, 324. 


. 


‘THE AUK,’ published quarterly as the Organ of the AMERICAN ORNITHOL- 
ogists’ Union, is edited, beginning with volume for 1912, by Dr. Wirmsr STONE. 

Terms :— $3.00 a year, including postage, strictly in advance. Single num- 
bers, 75 cents. Free to Honorary Fellows, and to Fellows, Members, and Asso- 
ciates of the A. O. U. not in arrears for dues. 


Tue OFFICE OF PUBLICATION IS AT 30 BortsToNn St., CAMBRIDGE, Boston, 
Mass. 


Subscriptions may also be addressed to Dr. JonatHan Dwicut, ‘Business 
Manager, 134, W. 7ist St., New York, N. Y. Foreign Subscribers may 
obtain ‘Tae Aux’ through Wiruersy & Co., 326, Hicn Hotporn, Lonpon, W. C. 


All articles and communications intended for publication and all books 
and publications for notice, may be sest to DR. WITMER STONE, 
AcaprEMY OF NaTURAL SciENCES, LOGAN SQUARE, PHILADELPHIA, Pa. 


Manuscripts for general articles must await their turn for publication if others 
are already on file but they must bein the editor’s hands at least six weeks, before 
the date of issue of the number for which they are intended, and manuscripts 
for ‘ General Notes’, ‘ Recent Literature’, etc., not later than the first of the month 
preceding the date of the number in which it is desired they shall appear. 


” On ae 
' _ _ 
- ae 
oa 
. 
» - 8 
' 
. 
: 
an 
“ ’ 
_. 2 
’ 
7 - 
Ww 
7 ‘ 
e- he 
 @ 
ae 
> rt _ 
: - *- 
“ae 
ae ' 
5 7 & 
i 


THE AUK, VOL. XXXVI. 


PLATE VII. 


ia AUC: 


A QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF 


ORNITHOLOGY. 


WOu. XXXVI. APRIL, 1919. No: 2; 


MRS. OLIVE THORNE MILLER. 
BY FLORENCE MERRIAM BAILEY. 
Plate VII. 


LirrLe more than a month after the last meeting of the A. O. U., 
at which greetings were sent from the Council to Mrs. Miller as the 
oldest living member of the Union, came the announcement of her 
death, on December 26, 1918. Born on June 25, 1831, she had 
indeed been allotted a full span, and for thirty-one of her eighty- 
seven years she had been associated with the American Ornitholo- 
gists’ Union joining four years after it was founded and being made 
Member in 1901 when that class was established. 

Harriet Mann — for the more familiar name of Olive Thorne 
Miller was the pen name adopted after her marriage — was born 
at Auburn, New York, where her father, Seth Hunt, was a banker; 
but she was of New England ancestry on both sides of the family, 
her paternal grandfather being an importing merchant of Boston, 
and her great-grandfather, Captain Benjamin Mann, having 
organized a company during the revolution of which he was in 
command at Bunker Hill. 

From Auburn the family moved to Ohio when she was eleven 
years old, making the journey, in lieu of railroads, by “packet” 
on the canal through the Mohawk Valley, by steamer across Lake 
Erie, and finally by an old-fashioned thoroughbrace coach for 
twenty-five miles through Ohio — a journey full of romance to an 

163 


164 Battey, In Memoriam: Olive Thorne Miller. Fisc 


imaginative child, and described entertainingly in one of Mrs. 
Miller’s delightful and in this case largely autobiographical child 
stories, ‘What Happened to Barbara.’ In Ohio she spent five 
years in a small college town where she attended private schools, 
among them one of the Select Schools of that generation, with an 
enrollment of some forty or fifty girls. At the age of nine, as she 
says, she “grappled with the problems of Watts on the Mind!” 
To offset the dreariness of such work, she and half a dozen of her 
intimate friends formed a secret society for writing stories, two 
members of the circle afterwards becoming well known writers. 
For writing and reading even then were her greatest pleasures. 
The strongest influence in her young life, she tells us, was from 
books. ‘“ Loving them above everything, adoring the very odor of a 
freshly printed volume, and regarding a library as nearest heaven 
of any spot on earth, she devoured everything she could lay her 
hands upon.”” As she grew older the shyness from which she had 
always suffered increased painfully, and coupled with a morbid 
sensitiveness as to what she considered her personal defects made 
people a terror to her; but solitary and reticent, she had the 
writer’s passion for self expression and it is easy to understand her 
when she says, “To shut myself up where no one could see me, and 
speak with my pen, was my greatest happiness.”’ 

In 1854, she married Watts Todd Miller, like herself a member 
of a well known family of northern New York, and in her conscien- 
tious effort to be a model wife and to master domestic arts to which 
she had never been trained, she sacrificed herself unnecessarily. 
“Many years I denied myself the joy of my life — the use of my 
pen,” she tells us, “and it was not until my children were well out 
of the nursery that I grew wise enough to return to it.” 

The history of the vicissitudes of her literary life is at once 
touching and enlightening. Full of ardor to reform the world, to 
prevent needless unhappiness and to set people on the right path, 
her first literary attempt was the essay, but as she expressed it, 
“the editorial world did not seem to be suffering for any effusions 
of mine,” and her manuscripts were so systematically returned 
that she was about giving up, concluding during very black days 
that she had mistaken her calling; when a practical friend gave her 

~a new point of view. What did the public care for the opinions of 


ay | Baitey, In Memoriam: Olive Thorne Miller. 165 


an unknown writer? she asked. Let her give what it wanted — 
attractively put information on matters of fact. Then when her 
reputation was established, people might be glad to listen to her 
views of life. 

Philosophically accepting the suggestion, she calmly burned up 
her accumulated “sentiments and opinions,” and set about writing 
what she termed “sugar-coated pills of knowledge” for children. 
The first, the facts of china-making in the guise of a story, she 
sent to a religious weekly which had a children’s page, and to her 
surprise and delight received a check for it — her first — two 
dollars! This was apparently in 1870, and for twelve years, she 
worked in what she terms that “Gradgrind field” in which during 
that period she published some three hundred and seventy-five 
articles in religious weeklies, ‘Our Young Folks,’ ‘The Youth’s 
Companion,’ ‘The Independent,’ ‘St. Nicholas,’ ‘The Chicago 
Tribune,’ ‘ Harper’s,’ ‘Scribner’s,’ and other papers and magazines, 
on subjects ranging from the manufacture of various familiar 
articles, as needles, thread, and china to sea cucumbers, spiders, 
monkeys, and oyster farms; and during those twelve years, in 
addition she published five books, the best known of which were 
perhaps ‘Little Folks in Feathers and Fur,’ 1873, ‘Queer Pets at 
Marcy’s,’ 1880, and ‘Little People of Asia,’ 1882. 

About this time, having lived in Chicago nearly twenty years, 
the Millers, with their two sons and two daughters, moved to 
Brooklyn, where they lived until Mr. Miller’s death. Not long 
after settling in Brooklyn, when she had spent twelve years mainly 
on miscellaneous juvenile work, Mrs. Miller was visited by a friend 
who gave her a new subject, completely changing the course of her 
life. The friend was none less than Mrs. Sara A. Hubbard, whom 
she had known as a book reviewer in Chicago, but who was also an 
enthusiastic bird woman — later an Associate of the A. O. U.— and 
whose greatest desire in coming to New York had been to see the 
birds. 

As Mrs. Miller naively remarks, “of course 1 could do no less 
than to take her to our park, where were birds in plenty.” And 
here, in Prospect Park when she was nearly fifty years old — 
incredible as it seems in view of her later work — Mrs. Miller 
got her first introduction to birds. “1 knew absolutely nothing 


166 Baitny, In Memoriam: Olive Thorne Miller. Fes 
about ornithology,” she confesses; “indeed, 1 knew by sight not 
more than two birds, the English Sparrow and the Robin, and I was 
not very sure of a Robin either! I must say in excuse for myself,” 
she adds, “that I had never spent any time in the country and had 
been absorbed all my life in books. My friend was an enthusi- 
ast, and | found her enthusiasm contagious. She taught me to 
know a few birds, a Vireo, the charming Catbird, and the beautiful 
Wood Thrush, and indeed before she left me I became so interested 
in the Catbird and Thrush that 1 continued to visit the park to 
see them, and after about two summers’ study the thought one 
day came to me that | had seen some things that other people might 
be interested in. 1 wrote what | had observed and sent an article 
to the ‘Atlantic Monthly’ and it was accepted with a very precious 
letter from Mr. Seudder, who was then editor. All this time my 
love of birds and my interest in them had been growing, and soon 
1 cared for no other study. I set up a bird-room in my house to 
study them winters and | began to go to their country haunts in 
the summer.” 

Of the bird-room described so interestingly in ‘Bird Ways’ it 
is only necessary to say that first and last Mrs. Miller had about 
thirty-five species of birds which she bought from the bird stores 
in winter and allowed to fly about in her bird room, where she could 
study them unobtrusively at her desk by means of skillfully 
arranged mirrors. For twenty summers, from 1883 to 1903, she 
spent from one to three months in the country studying the wild 
birds, visiting among other sections, Maine, Massachusetts, 
Vermont, New Hampshire, New York, Ohio, North Carolina, 
Michigan, Colorado, Utah, and California, taking careful notes 
in the field and writing them up for publication at the end of the 
season. ‘To one who has not known her, the method may sound 
deliberate and commercial, but to one who has worked joyfully 
by her side, each year’s journey is known to have meant escape 
from the world, to the ministering beneficence of Nature. Let 
her speak for herself.— “To a brain wearied by the din of the city 
....how refreshing is the heavenly stillness of the country! To 
the soul tortured by the sights of ills it cannot cure, wrongs it can- 
not right, and sufferings it cannot relieve, how blessed to be alone 
with nature, with trees living free, unfettered lives, and flowers 


| 
| 
| 
| 
! 
| 


Pel. i | Bartey, In Memoriam: Olive Thorne Miller. — : 167 
content each in its native spot, with brooks singing of joy and 
good cheer, with mountains preaching divine peace and rest!” ! 
Freed from city life and the tortures imposed by her profound 
human sympathy, each gift of fancy and imagination, each rare 
quality of spirit, jomed in the celebration of the new excursion 
into fields elysian. But while each sight she saw was given glamour 
and charm by her imagination and enthusiasm, her New England 
conscience ruled her every word and note, and not one jot or tittle 
was let by, no word was set down, that could not pass muster 
before the bar of scientific truth. 

Mrs. Miller’s first bird book was published in 1885 and the others 
followed in quick succession although they were interlarded with 
magazine articles and books on other subjects — as ‘The Woman’s 
Club,’ 1890, ‘Our Home Pets,’ 1894, ‘Four Handed Folk,’ 1896, 
and a series of children’s stories, 1904 to 1907. Her eleven bird 
books, published by the Houghton, Mifflin Company, were ‘ Bird 
Ways,’ 1885, ‘In Nesting Time,’ 1887, ‘Little Brothers of the Aur,’ 
1892, ‘A Bird Lover in the West,’ 1894, ‘Upon the Tree Tops,’ 
1897, ‘The First Book of Birds,’ 1899, ‘The Second Book of Birds,’ 
1901, ‘True Bird Stories from my Note-Books,’ 1902, ‘With the 
Birds in Maine,’ 1903, ‘The Bird our Brother,’ 1908, and her last 
book, ‘The Children’s Book of Birds’ 
First and Second Book of Birds — 1915. 

The newspaper and magazine articles of this second period of 
Mrs. Miller’s literary work, beginning with the time when she first 
began to study birds, were published not only in the principal 
religious weeklies and others of the former channels, but by vari- 
ous syndicates, in ‘Harper’s Bazar,’ and the ‘Atlantic Monthly.’ 
They included not only a large number of bird papers, some of 
which appeared later in her books, but also articles on general 
subjects, proving her friend’s statement, for now that her reputa- 
tion had become established on a basis of fact, the public was ready 
to profit by her “sentiments and opinions.”’ 

Her last book of field notes —‘With the Birds in Maine’ — 
was published in 1903, when she was seventy-two, after which time 
she was able to do very little active field work and her writing was 
confined mainly to children’s books. 


a juvenile form of the 


1 Upon the Tree-Tops’, 3, 1897. 


168 Barney, In Memoriam: Olive Thorne Miller. ees 


In 1902 Mrs. Miller had visited her oldest son, Charles W. Miller, 
in California, and fascinated by the outdoor life and the birds and 
flowers of southern California, she would have returned to live, 
without delay, had it not been that her married daughter, Mrs. 
Smith, and her grandchildren lived in Brooklyn. In 1904, however, 
accompanied by her younger daughter, Mary Mann Miller, she 
did return to California, where her daughter built a cottage on the 
outskirts of Los Angeles on the edge of a bird-filled arroyo where 
rare fruits and flowers ran riot and the cottage — IE Nido — 
became embowered in vines and trees. 

From 1870-1915, as nearly as can be determined by her manu- 
script lists, Mrs. Miller published about seven hundred and eighty 
articles, one booklet on birds and twenty-four books — eleven of 
them on birds, her books being published mainly by the Houghton 
Mifflin Company and E. P. Dutton. When we stop to consider 
that her real work did not begin until she was fifty-four, after which 
four hundred and five of her articles and nineteen of her books were 
written, and moreover that during her later years, by remarkable 
self-conquest, she became a lecturer and devoted much of her time 
to lecturing on birds in New York, Brooklyn, Philadelphia, and 
other towns, we come to a realization of her tireless industry and 
her astonishing accomplishment. 

When living in Brooklyn she was a member of some of the lead- 
ing women’s clubs of New York and Brooklyn, giving her time to 
them with the earnest purpose that underlay all her work. In the 
midst of her busy life, it is good to recall as an example of her 
devotion to her friends, that for years Mrs. Miller gave up one 
day a week to visiting an old friend who had been crippled by an 
accident; and after she had gone to California took time to make 
for her a calendar of three hundred and sixty-five personally 
selected quotations from the best in literature. 

Among Mrs. Miller’s pleasures during her later years in the East 
were the meetings of the Linnean Society held in the American 
Museum of Natural History in New York, and the A. O. U. meet- 
ings which she attended in New York, Philadelphia, Boston, and 
Washington, enjoying not only the papers of other workers, but the 
rare opportunity to meet those interested in her beloved work. Ina 
letter written after one of the meetings she exclaimed — “ You don’t 


iti 


Vol. SOXVE] — Bartey, In Memoriam: Olive Thorne Miller. 169 


know what a good time we have always. We had a real ‘love 
feast’ this time. Not only all the old standbys — Mr. Brewster, 
Mr. Sage, Dr. Allen, Dr. Merriam and the rest, but a lot of Audu- 
bonites and John Burroughs. 1 went over and stayed with Mrs. 
May Riley Smith and attended every session.” In this same 
letter she speaks of her promotion to the new class of membership 
and says, “It is a great pleasure to have honest work recognized, 
and encourages one to keep at it.” 

When Mr. Brewster, in view of a discovery made by Mrs. Miller, 
wrote in ‘The Auk,’ regretting that one “gifted with rare powers 
of observation”? should not record at least the more important 
of her discoveries in a scientific journal, Mrs. Miller replied in 
another note to ‘The Auk,’ confessing that she would not know 
what was a discovery; adding with the enthusiasm that vitalized 
her work — “to me everything is a discovery; each bird, on first 
sight, is a new creation; his manners and habits are a revelation, 
as fresh and as interesting to me as though they had never been 
observed before.” Explaining her choice of a literary rather than a 
scientific channel of expression, she gives the key to her nature 
work, one of the underlying principles of all her work — “my 
great desire is to bring into the lives of others the delights to be 
found in the study of Nature.” 

Looking over the bookshelf where the names of Burroughs, 
Torrey, Miller, and Bolles call up each its own rare associations, 
1 am reminded of a bit of advice that came long years ago from Mr. 
Burroughs’ kindly pen — “ Put your bird in its landscape’ — as this 
seems the secret of the richness and charm of this rare company 
of writers, for while beguiling us with the story of the bird, they 
have set it in its landscape, they have brought home to us “the 
river and sky,” they have enabled us to see Nature in its entirety. 

Remembering this great boon which we owe Mrs. Miller, it 
seems rarely fitting that when her three score years and ten were 
accomplished, her last days should have been spent in the sunshine 
surrounded by the birds and flowers which brought her happiness 
in beautiful California. 


170 DuBots, Nesting of the Horned Grebe. Ress 


AN EXPERIENCE WITH HORNED. GREBES (COLYMBUS 
AURITUS). 


BY ALEXANDER D. DUBOIS. 
' Plates VIJI-X 


Tue southeastern portion of Teton County, Montana, lying 
in the prairie region east of the Rocky Mountains, comprises flat 
and rolling bench-lands, traversed at frequent intervals by coulees 
which are tributary to the Teton and Sun Rivers. On these 
benches are occasional shallow depressions which have no natural 
drainage. They form transient “prairie sloughs’”’ which may be 
dry at one season and wet meadows or ponds of water at another. 

The slough which afforded the present observations is a crescent- 
shaped depression, not more than ten or twelve acres in extent, 
curving about a knoll upon which stands a homesteader’s cabin. 
There are no lakes or water courses in the immediate vicinity. 
During the last few years the region has been rapidly transformed 
into grain farms. At the time these notes were made the meadow 
in question was bordered on three sides by plowed fields. The 
spring of 1917 was an extremely rainy one, following a winter of 
much more than normal snow-fall. In consequence, the crescent- 
shaped meadow became a marshy sheet of water. 

On the open water of this pond two Grebes were seen on several 
days in May. On the third of June, while walking around the 
pond scanning its surface with a field-glass, I was suddenly amazed 
to see a Grebe sitting upon a nest which protruded above the water 
amid the secant vegetation. Careful examination showed the bird 
to be Colymbus auritus. She slipped from the nest, as I slowly 
waded toward her, and swam about in the open water, anxiously 
watching my every movement. The interest was mutual. After 
watching the bird for some time I went up to the nest and found 
that it contained two eggs. Subsequent visits showed that the 
eggs were deposited at intervals of two days; the dates of the visits 
and number of eggs found at each visit being as follows: June 3 (2); 


“THE AUK, VOL. XXXVI. PEyAies WANE 


sf Dystiney 9 Ray ny 
5 Aa 


Co 


1. Nestina Sire or HoRNED GREBE IN A FLOODED Mrapow. NEST BEYOND 
OprEN Water. WHEAT STUBBLE IN FOREGROUND. 


2. HorNED GREBE ON HER NEST, SHOWING SCANT SURROUNDING VEGETATION. 


pels | DuBors, Nesting of the Horned Grebe. 171 


June 5 (3); June 7 (4); June 9 (5); June 12 (6); June 13 (6): 

Whenever I appeared at the edge of the slough, it was the custom 
of the two Grebes to float about upon the area of open water with 
an air of supreme unconcern. ‘They busied themselves constantly 
with their toilets, preening the feathers of all parts of their bodies 
and very frequently tipping or rolling themselves in the water to 
reach their under parts with their bills. In this half-capsized 
posture they would float for several seconds, exposing to view the 
strikingly prominent white area that is normally below the water- 
line. This preening and floating in different positions, on the 
part of both birds, proceeded without interruption during my entire 
stay, each day that I visited them. It became very evident that 
it was practiced as a ruse to hold the attention of the intruder and 
thus divert him from their nest. 

On the morning of June 12, a camera was taken to the nest-site 
with the purpose of making photographs of the nest and eggs. On 
the land to the south, a homesteader with eight horses to his plow, 
was turning over the virgin sod. His furrows ended at the edge 
of the slough southwest from the nesting site of the Grebes. 
Upon wading to the nest I found the six eggs shielded on the south- 
west side, by a partial covering of vegetation which had been 
pulled up on that side only. The general character of the 
country and location of the nest are shown in the photograph 
on Plate VIII. After making a photograph, and remaining for a 
time near the nest to observe the parent birds, I left the tripod 
and camera in position and went away. The female was contin- 
ually gaining either confidence or bravery and had been swimming 
about in an agitated manner, not far from me, as I stood quietly 
by the camera. Before I had gotten out of sight of the nest I saw 
her go to it and change the covering or shielding material to its 
opposite edge, thus sheltering the eggs from the too inquisitive 
gaze of the camera’s eye. When I returned from the cabin the 
bird was on the nest, incubating. She took to the water as I 
came up, but continued to swim back and forth among the scant, 
neighboring tufts of marsh grass. As I stood very quietly for 
some time behind the camera her boldness gradually increased, 
until at length I was able to photograph her near the nest, with 
the aid of only ten feet of rubber tubing attached to the shutter 


172 DuBors, Nesting of the Horned Grebe. ee 


release. The making of these photographs consumed much time 
and continually the Grebe was growing bolder. She swam almost 
under the camera, and when I came close to the nest she made a 
dash at me, shooting entirely out of the water. This show of 
force was afterward repeated frequently, and it sometimes ended 
with a violent, splashing dive which sent a shower of spray over 
the camera outfit and the photographer. Meanwhile her spouse 
drifted quietly at a safe and respectful distance. Although one 
photograph of the bird on her nest was secured by means of a 
very long thread, the result was rather unsatisfactory. 

On the following day, June 13, I donned the hip boots again and 
stationed myself with the camera outfit, determined to see if 
patience would be rewarded by an opportunity to photograph the 
bird on her nest at close range. It was a wearisome experiment, 
but not without result, for eventually the Grebes became remark- 
ably bold. The female was the first to approach. She swam 
around the nest repeatedly, but for a long time refused to venture 
upon it. For the most part the male witnessed her adventures 
from a discreet distance. Occasionally however, he came up; 
and finally, while the female was showing her agitation by swim- 
ming hurriedly about, the male swam deliberately to the nest, 
climbed up its side, and sat on the eggs, facing me. A plate was 
exposed on this unexpected sitter but unfortunately was ruined 
by an accident before development. He became alarmed by my 
activities in changing plate-holders, or perhaps by the removal of 
my head from beneath the focusing cloth, and suddenly slipped 
off the nest into the water. Both birds were subsequently photo- 
graphed together, near the nest. 

I cautiously moved the camera somewhat closer and waited. 
The female frequently shot out of the water at me with a rush 
accompanied by a harsh cry, and sometimes ended her attack with 
a dive and a great splash. Eventually she went upon the nest, 
and once in contact with her eggs, she became invincible. I 
photographed her thus; then moved the tripod toward her, slowly 
and cautiously, keeping my head beneath the cloth. In this way 
the camera was placed within arm’s length of the bird and another 
exposure made, which resulted in the intimate portrait of Plate 
X, fig.1. I uncovered my head, but she remained firm, and when 


_ Vol. aa 
1919 


DuBois, Nesting of the Horned Grebe. 173 


I extended my hand toward her she reached out her long neck and 
delivered a vicious, stinging stab with her sharp bill. The threat- 
ening attitude of the bird, just previous to striking, is shown in 
Plate X, fig. 2. 

The exposed situation of this nest is shown in several of the 
photographs. It consisted of a mass of coarse grasses, many of 
them fresh and green, floating in about a foot of water, the body 
of the nest below the water line being of such bulk as to almost 
touch the muddy bottom. ‘The nest-lining, in the bottom of the 
well hollowed cavity, was very wet and soggy, being only slightly 
above the water surface when the nest was unoccupied, and proba- 
bly below it when the weight of the bird was added to that of the 
nest. This lining was composed of decaying vegetation which 
was decidedly warm to the touch, in the sunshine, while the wet 
rim of the nest was cold. 

The eggs of this set were taken. They were of course in various 
stages of incubation, from fresh in the last, to well begun in the 
first-laid egg. For some time after I had left the empty nest, 
taking the camera with me, the two Grebes swam to and fro 
beside it, or circled around it, frequently going to the nest and 
climbing part way up. Occasionally one of the birds, presumably 
the female, sat upon the nest for a brief period, shifting herself 
in a restless manner, and then returned to the water. 

For several days I stayed away. Would these birds nest again 
in this small and rapidly diminishing slough at so late a season? 
Would they leave the slough and go elsewhere to nest? Or would 
they abandon the duty of reproduction altogether? These ques- 
tions seemed of sufficient interest to demand further observations, 
but not wishing to further inject the factor of the human menace 
into their already complicated affairs, I left the birds entirely to 
themselves. Meanwhile extremely dry warm weather was causing 
rapid evaporation and the slough was shrinking very perceptibly. 

My next visit, on the eighteenth of June, disclosed the fact that 
the Grebes were not only present but were building a new nest not 
far from the old one. The nest seemed nearly completed. The 
two birds were floating near each other on the open water, preen- 
ing their plumage in the ostentatious manner previously described. 

At seven-thirty on the morning of June 21, the new nest con- 


174 DuBots, Nesting of the Horned Grebe. [April 


tained two eggs, partially covered, especially on the northwest 
side, which was the direction from which I approached the slough. 
There was a striking difference in the coloring of the two eggs, in 
view of the slight difference in their ages. One egg was a drab- 
tinted cream; the other a beautiful greenish tint with a freshness 
and delicacy which is difficult to describe, and which marked 
it as having just been deposited by the bird. A schedule of the 
subsequent visits to this nest is given in the accompanying table: 


| 
Visit Time of Number 


No. Date ane Oboes Were eggs covered ? | Was either bird seen? 
1 | June, 18 0 Both on open water 
2 ES Pal |) 7S) AI 2 Partially covered 
3 G9 2248-00 ALE 2 Sparsely covered 
4 5 BY |) 7/10) VN Ee 3 Not seen 
5 “ 24 | 9:00 A.M. 4 Covered Bird seen on nest 
6 C254 ico OUAGV le 4 Lightly covered Not seen 
u = 25a Sunset 4 Covered on E. side | Not seen 
8 eo" 26: 7:30 AME 5 Covered One on open water 
9 NT 2 Tale OOKAaML. 5 Not covered Saw bird leave nest 

10 © 28:17:30 AM: 5 Chiefly on E. side | Not seen 

al «29 | Evening 5 Covered Not seen 

12 | July, 4 5 Covered on top Not seen 

13 g 8 5 Covered Yes; in water-lane | 
14 ‘ 9 5 Covered Not seen 

15 101/28 00nRaviE 5 Not covered One bird seen 

16 See 186: 00)RsMie 5 Not covered Not seen 

ile 125|5:00)/ PM. 5 Partially covered | One on open water 
18 “13 | 6:00 P.M. 4 Not covered Not seen 

19 & 4 + Lightly covered | Not seen 

20 « 15 | Evening 3 Bird on nest 

21 “ 16 |10:00 A.M. 3 Not covered Not seen 

22 & 117 |10:00! A.-M: 3 Not covered One seen with young 
23 S173 Os Rave 2 Not covered Not seen 

24 “20 | 6:00 A.M. 2 Not covered Not seen 

25 EF OE UXO IO IMC 2 Not covered Not seen 

26 “ 23 | 9:00 A.M. 2 Not covered Not seen 

27 “ 24 | Evening 2 Not covered Not seen 


When I approached on the morning of June 24, the Grebe was 
on her nest. She made herself as inconspicuous as possible by 


THE AUK, VOL. XXXVI. RUATE IX: 


1. A Parr or HornED GREBES AT HOME. ITrEMALE AT RIGHT. 
2. Nest AnD Eaes or HorRNED GREBE. 


“a? 


“ed DuBors, Nesting of the Horned Grebe. 175) 


holding her head down, close to the nest rim. As I came within 
twenty-five or thirty yards of the nest the bird hastily pulled a 
covering of green-stuff over the eggs and slid silently into the 
water, disappearing completely. Although I watched for some 
time I did not succeed in catching even a glimpse of either of the 
birds. 

On the occasion of the sixth visit (June 26) I found the nest 
lightly covered with fresh green stems and blades which had been 
plucked by the bird. At that time I made the notation in my 
field book: “Never see the birds on the open water any more.” 
However, on the next day, some time after I had left the nest, 
I did see one of the Grebes floating on the open water. The eggs 
had again been covered with fresh vegetation. 

On the morning of June 27, I approached by a circuitous route, 
passing by the nest with my interest ostensibly concentrated else- 
where. But as I passed too near her the bird slipped quickly off 
the nest without stopping to cover the eggs; and I could not find 
her afterward. It will be noted from the tabulated schedule that 
neither of the birds was seen at the tenth, eleventh, or twelfth 
visits. The thirteenth visit was more successful for I saw a Grebe 
sitting perfectly motionless, at the edge of a water-lane which 
traversed some of the thickest vegetation, its bright red eyes 
appearing as its only conspicuous feature. The next day (four- 
teenth visit), I could not find the birds, and the fifteenth visit 
gave me only a fleeting glimpse of a Grebe. The eggs were not 
covered but were slightly shielded on the side from which I had 
come. On the evening of July 12, one of the birds was observed 
floating, silent and solemn, with head toward me, at the farthest 
side of the open water. It was evident at this time that the birds 
had changed their dress since my acquaintance with them at their 
first nest, for no yellow “horns” were now visible. 

On July 13, finding only four eggs in the nest, and pieces of 
egg shell both there and in the water, I searched carefully in the 
vicinity of the nest but without result. I could neither find the 
newly hatched young nor catch any glimpse of either parent. On 
the next day the conditions were the same except that the eggs were 
slightly covered and a few small feathers had been left on the nest, 
showing that the bird had been upon it. 


176 DuBots, Nesting of the Horned Grebe. Ren 


The twentieth visit, on the evening of July 15, gave me an oppor- 
tunity to examine the bird at close range. She was on the nest 
and allowed me to approach, cautiously, to a point twenty or 
thirty feet from her. She was considerably changed in appearance. 
The yellowish-white tip of the bill remained unaltered and the 
light line through the lower margin of the lore was observed to still 
persist, but the plumage of the head was much subdued, the yellow 
plumes having been exchanged for mere inconspicuous grayish 
streaks on the sides of the head. As I came up I could see a 
young bird poking its head through her wing. She soon left the 
nest, with a startling rush, and swam rapidly away, leaving three 
eggs in the nest and two tiny youngsters in the water. The newly 
hatched downy young can both swim and dive in a feeble way. 
As I approached them they tried to escape by diving. When I 
held them in my hands they gave utterance to a little cry not 
greatly different from that of domestic chicks. 

The downy young are very striking in appearance. They are 
striped longitudinally with black and white stripes; the white 
however is rather a “soiled” or grayish white. There are two 
narrow white stripes on the head which converge to a point at the 
base of the bill. Between these stripes, on the forehead, is a small 
slightly raised bare spot, of a bright red color, back of which is a 
white elongated blotch, or median stripe. The bill is pink and 
has on both mandibles a white tip which resembles white porcelain. 
This is larger on the upper mandible than on the lower. On the 
upper mandible between the nostrils there is a black spot. The 
iris is brown, not red like that of the adults. The lobate feet are 
remarkably well developed, but the wings are rudimentary. 

On the following day, July 16, I failed to find either the parent 
or the young at the nest. The three remaining eggs were not 
covered. Again on the morning of the seventeenth, the nest held 
only the three uncovered eggs; but when I skirted the east end 
of the slough to examine a Sora’s nest, I was startled by the parent 
Grebe taking wing not far from me. She flew over the farthest 
part of the slough, but soon returned, after circling a time or two, 
to the small area of open water, where she alighted with a splash- 
ing glide. When on the wing this bird shows very prominent 


pe. mal DuBors, Nesting of the Horned Grebe, We7 


white markings. The white secondaries cause the posterior 
portion of the wing to show as a prominent white area, and of 
course the entire under surface of the body, being white, is very 
conspicuous when the bird wheels. The flight is so duck-like 
that the flying Grebe might readily be mistaken, at a distance, 
for a duck. 

I waded to the spot whence this bird had taken flight and pres- 
ently saw the water agitated by some small creature beneath the 
surface. It was one of the diminutive downy Grebes, floating 
submerged, head downward, with its forward parts thrust into a 
mass of filamentous vegetation (algae), while its legs, stretched 
to their full extent posteriorly, were pointed vertically upward 
toward the surface of the water. I easily took it up in my hand. 

The next day, July 18, at 7:30 P. M., another egg had hatched. 
The nest was not covered. It contained two eggs and nearly all 
of the opened shell of the other, which last circumstance was of 
course unusual. I heard the young bird, and by following the 
faint sound of its voice found it, in the water, about six or eight 
feet from the nest. It was small enough to have just emerged from 
the shell. Its bill was very pink and the naked red spot, or comb, 
on its forehead very bright, though only slightly raised above the 
surrounding skin. By the merest chance I discovered a downy 
young duck within a few feet of the Grebe’s nest. It was not 
identified. Perhaps it had been attracted by the cry of the little 
Grebe. The adult Grebes were not seen, either on this visit or on 
July 20, when I looked for them early in the morning. On the 
latter date the two eggs and the nest were cold and the orphan 
above mentioned was dead, on the slope of the nest just above the 
surface of the water. There was an opening in the top of its 
skull through which its brain had been removed by some small 
creature. This nestling had probably never seen its parents but 
had taken to the water wholly by instinct. 

On the evening of July 22, the two eggs were cold and had not 
been disturbed since my previous visit, at which time their posi- 
tions had been carefully noted. However one of them was 
“pipped” and I could distinctly hear the voice of the bird within 
the shell. A search for the parent Grebes was without avail. A 


178 DuBors, Nesting of the Horned Grebe Auk 


faint voice, at the other side of the water, was detected and was 
followed several times, but when its author was finally lo- 
cated it proved to be not a Grebe but a recently hatched Sora 
Rail. 

The next morning, although the sun shone upon the nest, the 
eggs were cold and the fetuses in both of them were dead. No 
birds were seen. My last visit, on the evening of July 24, yielded 
no further result. But I noted now, that there was no water 
around the nest. It was stranded upon a mud-bar. This was 
undoubtedly the cause of forced abandonment of the nest. The 
Grebes were unable to reach it by a water route, and no other mode 
of travel was possible to them. A search around the water area, 
now very small and shallow, gave no further evidence. The 
Grebes were never seen again. 

In reviewing the account of these observations certain groups 
of data suggest themselves for summarization: 

It is interesting to note that only six days elapsed between the 
removal of the first set of eggs and the deposition of the first egg 
in a new nest. 

The period of incubation is twenty-four or twenty-five days, as 
shown in the following table of dates, noted at the second nest: 


E Incubation 

88 | Date Laid Date Hatched Period in 
No. 

days 

1 June 19 (?) July 13 24 

2 | June 21 July 15 24 

3 | June 22 or 23 | July 17 or 18 20 

4 | June 24 July 22, (Pipped) | Fetus died 

5 June 26 Fetus died 


It will be observed that the fourth egg was alive and on the point of 
hatching, twenty-eight days after it was deposited, but this can- 
not be considered normal, since the egg had been deprived of the 
parent heat for several days. It seems remarkable that the fetus 
survived the cool nights. 


THE AUK, VCL XXXVI PLATE X. 


1. HorNED GrREBE WITHIN ARM’s LENGTH OF THE CAMERA. 
2. FrMALE, HIssING AND READY TO STRIKE IN DEFENSE OF NEST. 


i 


pet. ao | DuBois, Nesting of the Horned Grebe. 179 


The change of color which these eggs undergo, is also worthy of 
note. I do not refer to the nest-stains caused by contact with the 
fermenting vegetation of the nest lining, but to a uniform color 
change of the surface layer of the shell, which is brought about 
presumably by exposure to light and atmosphere. Referring to 
the eggs of the second nest by numbers it will be noted that egg 
number two, when first observed at 7:30 A. M., had apparently 
just been deposited. As previously stated, its color was a very 
delicate bluish-green. Egg number one had already attained its 
final color; a sort of drab-tinted buff, which rendered it less con- 
spicuous in the nest. Twenty-four hours later, egg number two 
had changed to the same color as egg number one. No data were 
recorded for egg number three in this respect. Egg number four, 
after thirty-six hours, was “nearly but not quite the same color 
as the others.” After it had been in the nest forty-eight hours 
it was noted as, “same color as other eggs.”” But egg number five 
could searcely be recorded as fully changed after eighty-four hours 
had elapsed. These notes would seem to indicate that the first- 
laid eggs change color more rapidly than the later ones. It may 
be noted in this connection that the first eggs are slightly richer 
in the light green pigment; possibly, also, they receive less shelter 
from the parent bird than the later eggs. 

The usual vocal performance of these Grebes, so far as I was able 
to determine, is a sort of “ko-wee, ko-wee,” repeated at regular 
intervals. It might be compared to the squeak of a dry wheel- 
barrow producing one double squeak at each revolution of the 
wheel. It is however of a clearer quality than this comparison 
might indicate. Each “ko-wee”’ has rising inflection and its two 
syllables are run closely together, with the accent on the last 
syllable. 

The remarkable change of manner which came over these birds 
as the moult began will be appreciated by reference to the tabulated 
schedule of visits. The pugnacious bravery of the female at her 
first nest is amply attested by the photographs, while the records 
of the second nest show that the birds rarely permitted themselves 
to be observed, even at a distance, although they had eggs as before. 

These Horned Grebes were absolutely isolated so far as con- 


[April 


180 Harris, Notes on Harris’s Sparrow. 
cerns other individuals of the species.! There were certainly no 
other Grebes in the slough. Their nesting associates were as fol- 
lows: Red-winged Blackbird (Agelaius phaniceus fortis), about 
three pairs nesting; Sora Rail (Porzana carolina), three or four 
pairs nesting; Wilson’s Phalarope (Steganopus tricolor), several 
pairs; Killdeer (Oxyechus vociferus), one pair in evidence; Savan- 
nah Sparrows (Passerculus sandwichensis alaudinus) were present 
at the slough all summer; and a pair of Pintails (Dafila acuta) were 
believed to have a nest in an adjoining field. The adjoining prairie 
was monopolized, as usual, by the Horned Larks (Otocoris alpestris 
leucolema) and Longspurs (Calcarius ornatus and Rhynchophanes 
mccownt). 

At the present writing this slough is dry; the road which passes 
through it is traveled every day by automobiles; and the spot where 


the Grebes established their home a year ago has now been plowed — 


and _ planted. 


HISTORICAL NOTES ON HARRIS’S SPARROW 
(ZONOTRICHIA QUERULA). 


BY HARRY HARRIS. 


Durine the early decades of the nineteenth century when 
those pioneer ornithological enthusiasts, whose names and dis- 
coveries are familiar to all students of the science, were pushing 
beyond the frontiers in quest of new objects of study, the Kansas 
City region was the gateway to the wilderness and the very outpost 
of civilization. In this immediate neighborhood where the down- 
rushing Missouri is joined by the less turbulent Kaw, and where 
the grea< river bends finally to the east, were situated the frontier 
settlements of Independence, Fort Osage (Fort Clark, of Lewis 


1 Mr. A. A. Saunders advises me that so far as he is aware this is the only record of nesting 
of the Horned Grebe in Montana, although he has found two previous records of occurrence 
of the species in the state. 


| Harris, Notes on Harris’s Sparrow. 181 


and Clark), Westport, and the great Konzas Indian village, while 
a short distance up-stream were three other landmarks frequently 
mentioned by travelers, Fort Leavenworth, the mouth of Little 
Platte River, and the Black Snake Hills. 

These names bring to mind several notable ornithologists and 
botanists whose published journals and narratives are at once 
fruitful sources of information to the working student and delight- 
ful reading to any person. Of all the young scientists who passed 
this way in their eagerness to explore the unknown beyond and 
gather its treasures to science, perhaps none are of more interest, 
though others may be more widely known, than John K. Townsend 
and Thomas Nuttall. Nuttall’s discovery here of the bird now 
known as Harris’s Sparrow (Zonotrichia querula), together with 
the fact that two other eminent ornithological explorers, at later 
periods, each believed he had discovered the bird in this same 
region, renders the tradition of peculiar and obvious local interest. 

A long entertained hope of being able to determine the actual 
locality in Jackson County, Missouri, where Nuttall took the 
original specimen of this Sparrow, has led the writer to bring together 
the widely scattered data bearing on the early history of the bird. 
The facts in question, which do not appear to have been previously 
assembled, present several interesting features. 

Nuttall and Townsend had outfitted in St. Louis in late March, 
1834, preparatory to a leisurely pedestrian journey of some three 
hundred miles across the state to Independence, where they were 
to join the large caravan under Captain Nathaniel J. Wyeth, bound 
for the Columbia River country. On April 28th the party left 
Independence over the frontier trail to Westport, distant approxi- 
mately fourteen miles. Some time during the day Nuttall, who 
was primarily a botanist and is said to have carried no gun, took, 
or had taken for him by some member of the party, the type speci- 
men of Harris’s Sparrow which he named the Mourning Finch 
(Fringilla querula). Nuttall writes: “We observed this species, 
which we at first took for the preceding [White-crowned Sparrow], 
a few miles to the west of Independence, in Missouri, towards the 
close of April. It frequents thickets, uttering in the morning, and 
occasionally at other times, a long, drawling, monotonous and 
solemn note te de de de. We heard it again on the 5th of May, 


182 Harris, Notes on Harris’s Sparrow. [ woe 
not far from the banks of the Little Vermilion, of the Kansa.” ! 

The information contained in this short paragraph is the only 
guide the writer has had in a search for the spot where the species 
was first met with. Not a little difficulty has been experienced 


— 


g.8 
de 
| WESTPORT 
| | ROUTE TAKEN BY TOWNSEND & 
| A NUTTALL OW APRIL 28, /854- 
w| x0 ARROWS IMATE PROBABLE 
ai ©) tVPE NECORHOO OF Z. 
; el S| QUERUUA. 
*| P| SCALE 


in tracing the road between Independence and Westport in use in 
the early thirties, since but meager graphic record of its course has 
been preserved. The accompanying sketch map is in the main 


1A Manual of the Ornithology of the United States and of Canada, by Thomas Nuttall, 
Second edition of the volume on Land Birds. Boston, 1840. 


ae Harris, Notes on Harris’s Sparrow. 183 


authentic, authorities differing as to only a short stretch about 
three miles from old Westport. Many years association with 
the birds of this region leads the writer to the conclusion that these 
scientists would have had difficulty in crossing the Blue Valley at 
this season of the year without seeing or hearing troops of these 
striking Sparrows. That part of the road lying within the valley 
is indicated on the map by arrows. 

Townsend’s frame of mind on this momentous day is_ best 
described in his own words. “On the 28th of April, at 10 o’clock 
in the morning, our caravan, consisting of seventy men, and two 
hundred and fifty horses, began its march; Captain Wyeth and 
Milton Sublette took the lead, Mr. N.[uttall] and myself rode 
beside them; then the men in double file, each leading, with a line, 
two horses heavily laden, and Captain Thing [Captain W.’s 
assistant] brought up the rear. The band of missionaries, with 
their horned cattle, rode along the flanks. 

“T frequently sallied out from my station to look at and admire 
the appearance of the cavalcade, and as we rode out from the 
encampment, our horses prancing, and neighing, and pawing the 
ground, it was altogether so exciting that I could scarcely contain 
myself. Every man in the company seemed to feel a portion of 
the same kind of enthusiasm; uproarious bursts of merriment, and 
gay and lively songs, were constantly echoing along the line. We 
were certainly a most merry and happy company. What cared 
we for the future? We had reason to expect ere long difficulties 
and dangers, in various shapes, would assail us, but no anticipation 
of reverses could check the happy exuberance of our spirits. 

“Our road lay over a vast rolling prairie, with occasional small 
spots of timber at the distance of several miles apart, and this will 
no doubt be the complexion of the track for some weeks. 

“Tn the afternoon we crossed the Big Blue River at a shallow ford. 
Here we saw a number of the beautiful Yellow-headed Troopials, 
(Icterus zanthrocephalus) feeding upon the prairie in company with 
large flocks of Blackbirds, and like these, they often alight upon 
the backs of our horses.”’ ! 


1 Narrative of a Journey Across The Rocky Mountains, to the Columbia River and a 
Visit to the Sandwich Islands, Chili, &c. With a Scientific Appendix. By John K. 
Townsend. Philadelphia, 1839. 


184 Harris, Notes on Harris’s Sparrow. [ Pe 


Here is a vivid picture of a situation well calculated to stir the 
imagination and excite the enthusiasm of this twenty-five year old 
easterner on his first visit to the virgin West, and thoughts of 
ornithological discoveries were no doubt reserved for the future. 
Nuttall could not have been so distracted by the excitement inci- 
dent to the departure of this wild cavalcade, since he had had 
several previous experiences of the wilderness, was an older man, 
and was by nature “shy, solitary, contemplative, and of abstract 
manner.” At all events he set the ornithological pace immediately 
at the start of the journey by discovering a new bird. Townsend’s 
silence in his ‘Narrative’ regarding this important event was of 
course due to courtesy to the discoverer who had not yet given his 
species to science. 

In my account of Nuttall’s discovery of his ‘‘ Mourning Finch,” I 
have assumed that the specimen he took in Jackson County is the 
type. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that in the absence 
of any definite knowledge regarding the type specimen it is pre- 
sumed from his description that the specimen here taken was the 
type. The description referred to was published in the second 
edition of his Manual (the volume on water birds being a reprint 
of the first edition) which did not appear until 1840. It will thus 
be seen that this important species was allowed to remain in 
obscurity for six years while twenty-four other new species sub- 
sequently discovered on the teip had been described, as well as 
sixteen figured by Audubon in the Great Work, prior to the appear- 
ance of Townsend’s Narrative in 1839. Nuttall’s published 
description of the bird is merely the briefest possible outline of 
salient specific characters, no measurements whatever being given. 

On his return to the East, two years in advance of Townsend, 
Nuttall had in his possession a quantity of the latter’s material 
for delivery to the Philadelphia Academy of Sciences, which Insti- 
tution had helped substantially in financing the travelers. It 
was this material that Audubon sought so eagerly to possess, that 
his great work then nearing completion might not lack the new 
species.!. Audubon had called on Nuttall, in Boston, in the hope 


1 An unbiased account of Audubon’s efforts to secure these specimens is given in Chapter 
XXXI, Vol. 2, of Dr. Herrick’s recent historical study ‘Audubon The Naturalist.’ 
Further light on the subject may be found in a letter from Audubon to Harris under date 
of Oct. 26, 1837, published in the Auk, Vol. XX, p. 370, by S. N. Rhoads. Audubon has 
left a full account of his activities at this time in the Introduction to Vol. 4 of the © Orni- 
thological Biography.’ 


SY sous Harris, Notes on Harris's Sparrow. 185 


of assistance from that quarter, and was promised duplicates of 
all the new species in his possession. It is said that five species 
were here secured, but the Mourning Finch was not included. 
Nuttall had reserved this discovery for his own book, and not only 
was posterity thereby deprived of an Havell engraving of the 
largest and handsomest of our Sparrows, but Audubon, being kept 
in the dark, was himself to later publish the bird as the discovery 
of his friend Edward Harris.! 

On the same day that Townsend and Nuttall were so pictur- 
esquely entering the Indian country, Maximilian, Prince of Wied, 
who had spent the previous year on the upper Missouri, was making 
his way down-stream on his return to civilization. On May 13, 
1834, when but a few miles from the northern boundary of Missouri, 
his hunters took specimens of a bird new to him. In the second 
volume of his published journal,” he says: “It was toward eight 
o’clock in the cool morning of May 13 (1834) that we stopped on 
the right bank of the river and landed on a fine, green prairie, 
beset with bushes and high isolated trees... .We found many beau- 
tiful birds, among which [cteria viridis and the handsome Grosbeak 
with red breast Fringilla ludoviciana....At noon we reached 
Belle-Vue, Major Dougherty’s Agency....To the naturalist the 
surroundings of Belle-Vue were highly attractive. The beauti- 
ful wooded hills had shady ravines and small wild valleys... . 
Many, and some of them beautiful, birds animated these lovely 
thickets, the Cuckoo, the Carolina Dove, the Red-breasted Gros- 
beak, Sialia wilsoni, several Finches, among which F ringilla 
cyanea and erythropthalma, and of about the same size a new species 
which at least in Audubon’s Synopsis of the year 1839 is not 
enumerated and which I called Fringilla comata (2)”* The 
(2) in the text refers to a note at the end of the chapter where a 
description of the Harris’s Sparrow is given in great detail, and 
where the statement is made that “this bird nests in thickets 
along the shore of the Missouri River in the neighborhood of the 
mouth of La Platte River.” The first volume of Maximilian’s 


1 Notes from a letter of Edward Harris, Auk, 1895, p. 227, Geo. Spencer Morris. 

2 Reis im Innern Nord-Amerika. 2 Vols. Coblentz, 1839-1841. 

3 Having access only to a reprint of this rare work in which the ornithological matter is 
largely deleted, I am indebted to Mr. Otto Widmann for this extract which he translated 
from the original publication. 


186 Harris, Notes on Harris’s Sparrow. [ Fen 


journal, containing the record of his trip up the Missouri, was pub- 
lished in 1839, while volume two, covering the period when the 
Sparrow was taken, did not appear until 1841. Had he published 
both volumes simultaneously in 1839, his specific name comata 
would of course be current. It is interesting to note that though 
he took his first specimen just fifteen days after Nuttall had taken 
the type, and at a time when the bulk of the migrants had passed 
north, he had overlooked an opportunity of being the actual dis- 
coverer during the previous April, when he had been in the direct 
migratory path of the Sparrow at the season of its greatest abund- 
ance there. 

Nuttall himself had overlooked an opportunity of discovering the 
bird twenty-four years earlier, and had his attention at that time 
been directed to birds as well as plants, he would no doubt have 
become acquainted with the species. Referring to the Journal 
of his companion,' John Bradbury, an English botanist, it is found 
that they passed through this region during the spring migration 
of 1810, and while Nuttall’s absent-minded preoccupation in col- 
lecting plants was a standing joke among the voyageurs, Bradbury 
was somewhat more alive to ornithological possibilities, and has 
left many entertaining, and a few valuable notes on the better 
known birds. They had spent April 8th and 9th at Fort Osage, 
now Sibley, Jackson County, Missouri; and the writer knows of no 
more certain place to find Harris’s Sparrows in early April than 
in the timber and thickets of this bottom land. 

The Lewis and Clark party had passed through this region in 
June, 1804, and again early in September, 1806, and Thomas Say 
of the Long Expedition had been here in August, 1819. Maximil- 
ian was therefore the first ornithologist to enter the range of this 
species while the birds were in transit. 

The last “ discoverer’? was Edward Harris, in whose honor 
Audubon gave the bird its vernacular name. The memorable 
voyage of Audubon and Harris, together with Bell, Sprague, and 
Squires, up the Missouri River in 1843 is too well known to require 
comment. A few quotations will serve in connection with the 
story of the Sparrow. On May 2 the party passed the point in 


1 Travels in the Interior of America in the Years 1809, 1810, & 1811 &c. By J. Bradbury. 
Liverpool, 1817. 


pet] Harris, Notes on Harris's Sparrow. 187 
Jackson County, Missouri, where Nuttall and Townsend had left 
the river nine years previously. Early the next morning they 
reached Fort Leavenworth. After leaving this post the boat 
was stranded on a sand-bar from 5 o’clock in the evening until 
10 the next morning, giving the naturalists considerable time to 
do some collecting in the neighborhood. In his famous journal ! 
of the voyage, Audubon says under date of May 4: “Friend 
Harris shot two or three birds which we have not yet fully estab- 
lished....Caught...a new Finch.” And on the next day he 
states: “On examination of the Finch killed by Harris yesterday, 
I find it to be a new species, and I have taken its measurements 
across this sheet of paper.”’ In volume seven of the octavo edi- 
tion of his ‘ Birds of America,’ where the new species taken on the 
trip are described, the remarks under the Sparrow are as follows: 
“The discovery of this beautiful bird is due to my excellent and 
constant friend Edward Harris, who accompanied me on my late 
journey to the upper Missouri River, &c., and after whom I have 
named it, as a memento of the grateful feelings I will always enter- 
tain towards one ever kind and generous to me. 

“The first specimen seen was procured May 4, 1843, a short 
distance below the Black Snake Hills. I afterwards had the 
pleasure of seeing another whilst the steamer Omega was fastened 
to the shore, and the crew engaged in cutting wood. 

‘As I was on the look-out for novelties, I soon espied one of these 
Finches, which, starting from the ground only a few feet from me, 
darted on, and passed through the low tangled brushwood too 
swiftly for me to shoot on the wing. I saw it alight at a great 
distance, on the top of a high tree, and my several attempts to 
approach it proved ineffectual; it flew from one to another treetop 
as I advanced, and at last rose in the air and disappeared. During 
our journey up stream my friend Harris, however, shot two others, 
one of which proved a female, and another specimen was procured 
by Mr. J. G. Bell, who was also one of my party. Upon our return 
voyage, my friend Harris had the good fortune to shoot a young 
one, supposed to be a female, near Fort Crogan, on the fifth of 


1 Audubon and His Journals. By Maria R. Audubon. With Zodlogical and other Notes 
by Elliott Coues. 2 Vols. N. Y., 1900. 


188 Harris, Notes on Harris’s Sparrow. Resi 


October, which I have figured along with a fine male. The female 
differing in nothing from the latter. 

“ All our exertions to discover the nest of this species were fruit- 
less, and I concluded by thinking that it proceeds further north- 
ward to breed.” 

The work in which this supposed discovery was announced was 
published in 1844, four years after the second edition of Nuttall’s 
‘Manual’ appeared. Since this manual was the first American work 
on ornithology, excepting Wilson’s, to go into a second edition, it 
was presumably widely known among ornithologists, and it is 
not easy to understand why Audubon and his coworkers were in 
ignorance of their lack of claim to Nuttall’s Mourning Finch. 

During the twenty-five or thirty years following Audubon’s 
visit to the Missouri haunts of the Sparrow, practically nothing 
was learned of its life-history or distribution, and the few scat- 
tered specimens that were taken were all from the same general 
region. A specimen furnished by Lieut. Couch, taken at Fort 
Leavenworth on October 21, 1854, formed part of the material 
used by Prof. Baird in his epochal work in 1858, as did another 
taken at the same point on April 21, 1856, by Dr. Hayden, of 
Lieut. Warren’s Pacific Coast Surveys party. Dr. Hayden took 
three other specimens further up the river in the same year. Dr. 
P. R. Hoy, who collected in the type region in 1854, took a speci- 
men on May 7, and on May 13 met with a troop of fifteen or 
twenty. There are a few other records from the Missouri Valley 
and one from Texas (Dresser, Ibis, 1865) prior to the numerous 
ornithological activities of the early seventies. Dr. J. A. Allen, 
collecting in the interest of the Museum of Comparative Zodlogy, 
had his headquarters at Fort Leavenworth during the first ten days 
of May, 1871, and found Harris’s Sparrows exceedingly abundant 
in the bottom timber on the Missouri side of the river. He added 
a few field notes on behavior, appearance, etc, and took a series of 
specimens. Baird, Brewer, and Ridgway state that from the time 
of its discovery in 1834 up to 1872 but little information had been 
obtained in regard to the Sparrow’s general habits, its geographical 
distribution, or its mode of breeding, single specimens only having 
been taken at considerable intervals in the valley of the Missouri 
and elsewhere. In 1874 Dr. Coues brought together all the avail- 


| Harris, Notes on Harris’s Sparrow. 189 
able data in his interesting article on the bird in ‘Birds of the 
Northwest,’ but was able to add nothing in determining the bounds 
of its habitat, which he gave as “Region of the Missouri. East 
to Eastern Iowa.” 

It was not until ten years later that enough information had 
accumulated to warrant an attempt at defining the limits of its 
range and the periods of its migration. This was done by the 
painstaking and accurate Wells W. Cooke in the first volume of 
‘The Auk,’ in 1884. In this article, ‘Distribution and Migration 
of Zonotrichia querula,’ he was able only in a very general and 
indefinite way to give the western and southern extent of the 
range, but the eastern limits remain practically as he defined them. 

In 1913 Professor Cooke noted the interesting peculiarity of 
the migration of the Harris’s Sparrow in the interval that elapses 
after the first spring advance. He states! that the birds become 
common along the Missouri River in northwestern Iowa soon after 
the middle of March and yet it is not until early May that they 
are noted a few miles further north in southeastern South Dakota 
and southwestern Minnesota. He adds that the dates suggest 
the probability that these March birds have wintered unnoticed 
in the thick bushes of the bottomlands not far distant, and have 
been attracted to the open country by the first warm days of 
spring. This theory is borne out by the facts as observed by the 
writer in the Kansas City region. The birds are present in this 
vicinity during even the most severe winters, but keep to the dense 
shelter of the Missouri bottoms. During mild and open winters 
a few scattered flocks may even spend the entire season until 
spring in the hedges and weed patches of the prairie country. 

This Sparrow has always attracted attention in the field by its 
large size and conspicuously handsome appearance, as well as by 
its sprightly and vivacious manner and querulous notes, but it 
has seldom been the subject of special notice in the literature of 
American birds. Its bibliography is chiefly confined to diagnostic 
listing in formal works on ornithology, brief annotations in faunal 
lists, and occasional mention in published field notes. 

During the thirty-four years that have elapsed since Prof. Cooke’s 


1The Migration of North American Sparrows. Compiled by Prof. W. W. Cooke, chiefly 
from data in the Biological Survey. Bird Lore, 1913, p. 301. 


190 Wermorn, The Palate in Icteride. [ fen 


article of 1884, the Sparrow, as a migrant, has become well known 
to ornithologists. Its narrow migration path, the center of which 
in the United States is approximately down the 96th meridian, has 
been worked out; the wide extent of territory covered by strag- 
glers has been fully reported;! the food habits of the bird while 
on migration have been thoroughly investigated and the results 
published; ? the nest has been seen once,’ and young just out of the 
nest have been collected,* and the general region of the breeding 
ground itself is known to be where barren tundra meets the edge 
of the timber between Hudson Bay and Great Bear Lake. But the 
eggs yet remain to be discovered. 


NOTES ON THE STRUCTURE OF THE PALATE IN THE — 


ICTERID. 
BY ALEXANDER WETMORE. 


THE curious keel-like, angular projection found on the palate 
in the North American Grackles of the genus Quiscalus, recognized 
as one of the prominent characters distinguishing that group of 
Blackbirds, is a structure that can hardly fail to attract attention 
when the mouth is examined in freshly killed specimens, or in 
birds preserved in spirits. Recently, certain observations made in 
the field on these birds, which will be recounted later, recalled 
this structure to mind and the writer was led to make a somewhat 
detailed study of the palatal keel in the Grackles, and finally to 
examine the appearance of the palate in other members of the family 
Icteride. In these studies, carried on in the United States National 


1The Status of the Harris’s Sparrow in Wisconsin and Neighboring States. By Alvin 
R. Cahn. Bull. Wis. Nat. Hist. Soc., Vol. XIII, No. 2, pp. 102-108. Also in numerous 
lists and field notes published in ‘The Auk,’ © Wilson Bull.’ and the other bird journals. 

2 The Relation of Sparrows to Agriculture. By Sylvester A. Judd. Bull. Biol. Surv. 
No. 15, 1901. 

* Bird Records from Great Slave Lake Region. By E. T. Seton. The Auk, 1908, p. 72. 

4 Biological Investigation of Hudson Bay Region. By E. A. Preble. N. A. Fauna No. 
22. Washington, 1901. 


| Wernmore, The Palate in Icteride. 191 


Museum, there have been available suitable specimens represent- 
ing all of the leading genera with the exception of Clypevcterus, 
Ocyalus, Lampropsar and Macrageleus. In all, one hundred and 
thirteen species belonging to thirty-one genera have been examined. 

Study of skins of the genus Quiscalus shows that the palatal keel 
is developed as a compressed projection from the roof of the mouth, 
slightly behind the center of the commissure (Fig. 1). Viewed 


ee ee ip 


Fig. 1. Head of Quiscalus quiscula aeneus. a Palatal keel (about natural size.) 


from the side it is truncated in front, forming an angular projection 
that has a tendency to become toothed at the tip. Posteriorly it 
lowers to merge finally into the level of the palate. The anterior 
margin is sharp, and the posterior portion is thicker and stronger. 
The entire ridge is developed as a fold in the horny sheathing of 
the palate, and the surface of the premaxilla underneath is smooth 
and flat with no indication of a bony ridge to support the keel. 

From the examination of museum skins it appears that the palatal 
ridge begins to develop in juvenile birds a short time before they 
leave the nest, at a stage when the body is well covered with 
feathers, and the incoming tail feathers have attained a length of 
20 to 25 millimeters. In such birds the keel appears as a very 
slightly raised ridge that forms a distinct line on the palate. The 
bill at this time has reached about three-fourths of the length 
attained when the bird is adult, so that the beginning of this ridge 
appears to be located far forward, though it occupies the same 
position in relation to the external nasal opening that the fully 
developed keel does in the adult. In the dried skins the ridge is 
somewhat indistinct, but it is possible that it may be more readily 
apparent in living or recently killed specimens. 


192 Wetmore, The Palate in Icteride. [ fen 


In birds that are almost fully feathered and that are about ready 
to leave the nest the bill has become stronger, the raised palatal 
line is heavier, and has a rounded anterior end that forms a marked 
projection and then continues to merge with the palate in front. 
In older specimens, able to fly but with the rectrices only 95 to 
105 mm. long, the palatal ridge was better marked, being broad 
and strong basally and more slender toward the point. In a few 
of the specimens of this stage examined the cutting angle seemed 
well developed, but in others it was less strongly indicated. In 
birds that were fully grown but still in juvenal plumage the ridge 
was well developed but not so prominent as in adults. In some 
the basal portion was broad and rounded, verging toward the 
formation of palate found in the genus Megaquiscalus. In others 
the anterior cutting angle was more prominent but the entire ridge 
had only attained from one-half to three-fourths of its full height. 

No one apparently has raised the question of the possible function 
of this keel, developed as described above, so that it seems proper 
to record here certain field observations made by the writer that 
indicate the use of this structure. As might be expected it serves 
in securing and preparing certain parts of the food. In December 
1917, near Stuttgart in eastern Arkansas, during a time when the 
ground was covered by a light fall of snow, flocks of Bronzed 
Grackles were found feeding among small groves of a pin oak 
(Quercus pagodaefolia). The ground under these trees was nearly 
bare and the birds were working about searching for the small 
acorns that had fallen and were partly concealed under leaves 
and low plant growth beneath the oaks. The Grackles were tame 
and with a pair of binoculars it was an easy matter to watch them 
at close range. The acorns were picked up, held in the bill and 
pressed firmly against the keel on the palate, then released, turned 
slightly by means of mandibles and tongue, and then again gripped 
strongly. In this way the acorn was rotated until a line had been 
impressed entirely around the shell. With a little further manipu- 
lation the shell dropped off in two halves and the kernel was swal- 
lowed entire without further preparation, though frequently it 
was gulped down only after some effort. After watching one feed- 
ing flock for some time I clapped my hands sharply to startle them 
and then examined the ground where they had been at work. 


iene Wetmore, The Palate in Icteride. 193 


Scattered among the leaves were many acorn shells, most of which 
had been cut in two in a line transverse to the longitudinal axis. 
Some had fairly smooth, clean-cut margins, while others were 
roughened and jagged. In searching through the leaves I picked 
up one acorn still intact that had been dropped by one of the birds, 
perhaps when the flock was frightened up, in which a line had been 
impressed entirely around the center. In this the impressions of 
the palatal keel were distinctly visible. 

When attention was once attracted to this manner of feeding 
other incidents were noted in which the palatal keel was brought 
in play. On one occasion on the streets of Washington a Purple 
Grackle was observed attempting to split open a kernel of corn 
dropped from some passing dray. The bird held this grain in the 
slight notch near the center of the bill and pressed it against the 
angular keel. The grain proved refractory, as it snapped out sev- 
eral times, dropping 8 or 10 inches away, to be seized and again 
compressed. Watching until it had been dropped I frightened 
the bird and secured the kernel of corn. On one side four grooves 
impressed in the hard outer surface were visible showing where, 
and with what force, the sharp keel had been applied. 

Apparently the palatal ridge develops with the gradual growth 
of the bill, and becomes fully functional shortly after the immature 
bird is left by its parents to its own resources in securing food. 
It seems to be fully grown in all by the middle of September. In 
many adult specimens the ridge shows signs of heavy wear from 
the nearly constant use to which it is put. In some the cutting 
angle was well rounded in front from constant abrasion, while in 
others the anterior margin had become irregular and broken. In 
one specimen the thin lower margin of the compressed keel was 
entirely worn away, leaving a low rounded projection in which the 
two sides of the fold by which the keel had been formed were 
clearly visible, with a line of separation between them. It was 
interesting to note that the palatal ridge was usually well wora 
in old adults, taken in late fall or early spring, belonging to the 
northern races (Quiscalus q. quiscula and Q. q. encas) while little 
or no wear was apparent in similar specimens of the southern form 
(Q. g. agleus) from South Carolina and Florida. The data avail- 
able from the examination of a small number of stomachs of this 


194 Wermore, The Palate in Icteride. Re 


form from Florida show a preponderance of insects and_ fruits 
with very little mast or grain, a fact of interest, but one that is 
not fully substantiated as the material available is small. 

Among near relatives of Quiscalus quiscula a slightly developed 
palatal ridge was encountered in Megaquiscalus macrourus, where 
the projection was broad and well rounded posteriorly, and narrow 
in front with the lower margin acute, forming a sharp keel. In 
some specimens seen this keel was slowly reduced until it merged 
smoothly with the palatal surface in front. In others the anterior 
margin was obtusely declivous. The obtuse anterior cutting angle 
projected below the margins of the tomia for nearly a millimeter 
in a few individuals, and in these occasional specimens the resem- 
blance was striking to those bills of Quiscalus in which the ridge was 
most poorly developed. Juvenile specimens of Megaquiscalus m. 
macrourus from Fort Clark, Texas, that had been collected just 
after they had left the nest, had the palatal ridge already well 
indicated though only about one-half developed. In the slender- 
billed forms known as Megaquiscalus tenuirostris and M. nicara- 
guensis the palatal keel was much as in M. major though slighter 
and less pronounced. 

In Blackbirds belonging to the West Indian group known as 
Holoquiscafus a raised line was also more or less developed. In 
general the growth was similar to that in Megaquiscalus as the 
posterior portion was broad and rounded, while anteriorly the ridge 
was narrowed and the lower margin became acute. There is some 
variation in the size of this anterior portion; in a few the crest is 
obtusely declivous in front, approaching the condition found in 
Quiscalus, but never with the keel produced so that it projects below 
the plane subtended by the cutting edges of the tomia. 

The discovery of a peculiar knoblike process on the palate of the 
mexican orioles belonging to the species Icterus gularis was one of 
the really surprising discoveries made during a more or less cursory 
examination of the palate in various species and genera of Icterid@ 
picked out at random, and it was the finding of this structure in 
an Oriole that led to a detailed examination of all of the material 
available. In Icterus gularis the palatal ridge is from 1.2 to 1.5 
millimeters high at its anterior end (Fig. 2). The entire structure 
is broad and somewhat flattened. The ventral surface is slightly 


isto. a Wermore, The Palate in Icteride. 195 


rounded, the sides slightly sloping, the sides and lower surface join- 
ing ata sharp angle. In front the ridge is abruptly truncated at its 
ventral margin where there is sometimes a slight tooth or projec- 


—— el 


Fig. 2. Head of Icterus gularis yucataneusis. 6. Palatal knob (about natural size.) 


tion. Below this point the anterior surface slopes abruptly, and 
then passes over into the roof of the palate. The ridge is about two 
millimeters broad, and there is a slightly indicated raised line on the 
ventral surface for three-quarters of its length behind. From this 
description it may be seen that this blunt projection is entirely 
different from the sharply keeled ridge found in Quiscalus. 
Examination of other orioles shows that Icterus gularis stands 
alone in respect to this development as there is nothing found in 
other species that approaches it save for a broad, low, rounded 
projection, slight but distinct, that is found on the palate in Icterus 
xanthornus. In Icterus laudabilis and I. prosthemelas there is a very 
slightly raised median ridge developed on the posterior part of the 
roof of the mouth. Jn twenty-eight other species belonging to this 
genus the palate exhibits no peculiarities worthy of mention. This 
structure in the bill in Jcterus gularis is constant in its presence, and 
serves as a trenchant character distinguishing it from other orioles, 


or in fact from any other members of the Icteride that have been 


available for examination. The differences pointed out above, 
together with others of lesser importance, seem to be of generic 
value. It is therefore proposed to recognize for this species the 
genus name 


196 Wermore, The Palate in Icteride. Awa 


Andriopsar Cassin! 


Type.— Ps{arocolius| gularis Wagler, Isis, 1829, p. 754 (type local- 
ity, Tehuantepec, Oaxaca). 

Diagnosis— Medium-sized Icteride with short, heavy bill; a 
prominent knob-like projection on the posterior median portion 
of the palate, broad and somewhat flattened im general form, with 
abrupt sides, truncated in front, sometimes with a tooth or notch 
at the anterior ventral angle, about 2 millimeters broad and from 
1.2 to 1.5 millimeters high in front; depth of culmen at base nearly 
equal to one-half length of culmen (varying from slightly more to 
slightly less); tarsus slightly longer than culmen from base; middle 
toe with claw equal to two-thirds, or slightly more, of length of 
tarsus. 

One species in which three subspecies have been described is at 
present known to belong in this genus. These will stand as follows: 

Andriopsar gularis gularis (Wagler) 

Andriopsar gularis tamaulipensis (Ridgway) 

Andriopsar gularis yucatanensis (Berlepsch) 
At present there is no information on the feeding habits of these 
orioles available but it seems certain that they will show some 
striking peculiarity in choice of food or in manner of securing and 
handling it when the life history of the species is better known. 

In conclusion I desire to give a brief summary of the condition 
of the palate in other Icteride where comment is necessary. In 
Euphagus carolnus and E. cyanocephalus there is a slight elongate 
ridge of low elevation, rounded posteriorly more acute in front, 
and not projecting as far as the level of the tomia. This raised 
line is slightly more pronounced in FE. carolinus than in E. eyano- 
cephalus in spite of the fact that the latter has a heavier, stronger 
bill. The species known as Ptiloxena atroviolacea has an elongate, 
narrow, slightly elevated ridge on the posterior portion of the palate, 
rounded behind and more or less acute in front, but with too low 
an elevation to be considered a highly specialized structure. Sumi- 
chrast’s Blackbird (Dives dives) has a palatal structure somewhat 
resembling that of the genus [Holoquiscalus save that the entire 
ridge is shorter. 


1 Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia, Vol. XIX, 1867, p. 49. 


oe XVI Wermorn, The Palate in Icteride. 197 


With regard to others, Tangavius eneus has a slight ridge, that 
becomes stronger behind, extending for two-thirds the length of 
the palate. A similar ridge in Molothrus badius is less developed 
at its anterior end than in the preceding genus. In Moloihrus 
fringillarius (one specimen only examined) this ridge is still less 
in development. In Molothrus ater, the cutting edges of the tomia 
do not extend below the level of the palate, and there is a rounded 
swelling behind the center; in Molothrus atronitens only a very 
slight ridge is present, and finally in M. rufo-azxillaris there is no 
peculiarity worthy of mention. Nesopsar nigerrimus shows a well 
marked rounded ridge on the posterior part of the palate that 
merges into the anterior surface without becoming produced as an 
angle. Xanthopsar imthurmi shows a slightly developed posterior 
ridge, while in Agelaius pheniceus (including gubernator) there is a 
very faint swelling at the posterior end of the palate, that becomes 
much more pronounced in A. ftricolor. Agelaius thilius and A. 
icterocephalus show a faintly raised median line, that in the latter 
species is broadened and rounded posteriorly. Amblyrhamphus 
holosericeus has a long, low, keeled median ridge, and in the three 
species of Sturnella there is an elongate keel, that is rounded behind 
and acute in front. In Cureus aterrimus the palate is on a level 
with the edge of the tomia, and has a low rounded bulge on its 
posterior surface. Trupialis militaris and T. falklandicus have a 
slight rounded posterior ridge, that is absent in 7. bellicosa and 
T. defillipi, and finally in Gymnomystax melanicterus there is a low, 
narrow, keeled ridge on the posterior part of the palate, that merges 
gradually into the surrounding level in front. None of the other 
species seen present any marked peculiarities. 


198 Beretotp, The Crow in Colorado. Fes 


THE CROW IN COLORADO. 
BY W. H. BERGTOLD. 


A stupy of the technical status, and distribution of the Crow in 
Colorado discloses, at once, an interesting, and a peculiar situa- 
tion! 

The Crow was first recorded in Colorado, so far as I am able to 
learn, by Aiken (1), who reported it in this State in 1872 under 
the name Corvus americanus; thereafter several other writers 
mentioned the bird, as having been found in Colorado:— Ridgway 
in 1877 (2), Stephens in 1878 (3), and Drew in 1881 and 1885 (4), 
all using the same name employed by Aiken. 

Ridgway (5) erected the subspecies hesperis in 1887, at that time 
giving its range substantially as outlined today by the A. O. U. 
‘Check-List’; the validity of this subspecies was not admitted 
by the A. O. U. Committee until July, 1908 (6). In his original 
description of the new subspecies (hesperis) Ridgway did not state 
how many skins he examined nor whence they came, but gave 
as the eastern limit of the new subspecies “east to the Rocky 
Mountains,” while in his later account (7) of hesperis, for which he 
utilized twenty-three skins for study purposes, he carefully quali- 
fies the eastern limit by adding “from the Eastern portion of the 
arid region?”’ It is to be noted that he did not definitely mention 
Colorado as being included within the hesperis area; in his coinci- 
dental review of the literature possibly related to the new sub- 
species, however, all citations of previous records of Colorado Crows 
are grouped under the literature of subspecies hesperis. This 
probably was done because he did not have time to sift out the 
records relating to the eastern slope from those of the western 
slope so as to place them under the literature relating to the indi- 
vidual subspecies. So far as Colorado is concerned in this question, 
Ridgway probably did not take this matter up in detail because 


1 My thanks are due to the following friends who made it possible for me to study crow 
skins from parts of the State not covered by my own collection; L. A. Adams, A. H. Felger, 
J. D. Figgins, F. C. Lincoln, F R. Warren, Witmer Stone, and to my various friends for 
permitting me to quote them in the body of this paper. 


cae | Brereton, The Crow in Colorado. 139 


there is not a single Crow skin in either the National Museum, or 
in the Biological Survey Collections, which came from Colorado. 

Most, if not all, of the writers who thereafter, directly or indi» 
rectly, touched on the Crow’s position in Colorado, made their 
diagnoses as to subspecies on regional grounds alone. 

In the interval between Ridgway’s erection of subspecies hespervs, 
and its admittance to the A. O. U. ‘Check List’ (1887 to 1908) 
Morrison (8) and Drew (19) were, so far as I know, the only writers 
to record the Crow in Colorado, Morrison mentioning it first, as 
Corvus frugivorus and the second time (9) as Corvus americanus, 
while Drew entered his record under the latter name. 

Cooke’s ‘List of the Birds of Colorado’ was published in March 
1897, and in it he grouped all of the previous Colorado Crow records, 
regardless of region, under the name Corvus americanus; notwith- 
standing that Ridgway had ten years previously separated the 
eastern and the western Crows, Cooke (22) logically disregarded 
this action, because he followed the A. O. U. ‘Check-List’ in 
assembling his ‘ List of Colorado Birds.’ Inall the various supple- 
ments which Cooke published to his list (the last being in ‘The 
Auk’ of October 1909) he did not change his early naming of the 
Colorado Crows, allowing them to stand as Corvus americanus 
or its synonym. I am confident that he recognized the probability 
of there being two subspecies in the State, but wisely refrained 
from opening the question because of lack of material available 
for definite determination. Furthermore I am given to under- 
stand that there are no Crow skins in the collections of the State 


_ Agriculture College at Fort Collins, where Cooke was located when 


he compiled his ‘List,’ which fact would lend support to the idea 
that his omission to mention the possibility of both the Eastern 
and the Western Crows being found in Colorado was due to his 
unwillingness to pass judgment on a question without the support 
of definite material or data. 

In his ‘The Present Status of the Colorado Check-List of Birds’ 
(10), Cooke again was silent as to the presence of subspecies brachy- 
rynchos or of hesperis or of both within the confines of Colorado, 
though at least three writers (11), (12), (13), had previously men- 
tioned the Colorado Crow in their respective papers, as being 


“hesperis; Cooke was too careful and experienced an ornithologist 


200 Beretotp, The Crow in Colorado. ical 
to have overlooked these records and J am sure his silence was judi- 
ciously intentional and premeditated. 

It thus appears that between 1887 and 1912 the Crows of Colo- 
rado had been recorded by some observers, so far as subspecies 
were concerned, as brachyrhynchos, and by others as hesperis, 
but so far as I know and am able to learn, none suggested or 
recorded that these two subspecies coexisted in the State. 

I am inclined to believe that Sclater’s (13) designating the Colo- 
rado Crow as hesperts was made on purely geographical grounds, 
because the collection then at his command, (that at Colorado 
College, Colorado Springs) contains but one crow skin, a partial 
albino, which proves to be, under examination, subspecies brachy- 
rhynchos. E. R. Warren allows me to state that he has no Crow 
skins in his collection, and that he made his subspecific diagnosis 
of hesperis, for the birds seen near Bulah, Colorado, on geographic 
grounds only. In later records Warren (14) wisely refrains from 
trying to decide as to the subspecies, when listing the Crows seen 
in Montrose County, and in northern Colorado, mentioning the 
birds merely as Corvus brachyrhynchos, and Henderson (18) did 
likewise in his Boulder County List. 

1 do not know on what grounds Hersey and Rockwell (11) made 
their statement that subspecies hesperis was to be found on the 
eastern slope of the Rockies. 

Since Cooke’s last word on our Colorada avifauna, two more 
writers have given the Crow as a species found within the State, 
each listing it as hesperis, and both records are for the Atlantic 
slope. JI am permitted by F. C. Lincoln (15), the first of these 
two writers, to say that he did not take any Crows in Yuma County, 
and that he made his subspecific diagnosis on geographic grounds 
alone. It isnow, unhappily, impossible to determine what led Betts 
(16), the second of these two writers, to conclude that the Boulder 
County Crow was hesperis. I do not know whether he collected 
specimens in Boulder County; but Junius Henderson informs me 
that Betts sent crow eggs to the National Museum. But he prob- 
ably did not send skins for, as has already been said, there is not a 
Crow skin in the National Museum collection, from Colorado. The 
internal evidence (18) points to the belief that Betts too, recorded 
the Boulder County Crow as hesperis, on geographic grounds alone. 


pel a | Breretoitp, The Crow in Colorado. 201 

Crows seen by Warren (17 and 20) in other parts of the State 
are given as subspecies brachyrhynchos, but again named on regional 
grounds only. 

From the foregoing it appears that the Crows of Colorado were 
listed, principally as Corvus americanus up to the acceptance of 
subspecies hesperis in the A. O. U. ‘Check-List,’ and since then 
variously listed as Corvus brachyrhynchos, Corvus brachyrhynchos 
brachyrhynchos, or Corvus brachyrhynchos hesperis, but, to repeat, 
so far as I can learn, in no instance have any of the last two kinds 
of records been made on skin determinations. This statement is 
based on a study of the published records, and on a considerable 
relevant correspondence with my associates throughout the State; 
if I err the statement is open and subject to correction. 

The western third of Colorado lies on the Pacific slope, and the 
eastern two-thirds on the Atlantic and on both of these slopes the 
Crow has been detected, and variously recorded as to subspecies. 
The A. O. U. ‘Check-List’ does not speak of hesperis actually 
extending eastward to the Rocky Mountains, but Mr. Ridgway, 
in a recent communication said to me “I feel quite sure that any 
Crow found west of the Divide in Colorado would be C. b. hesperis. 
On the other hand, those found on the eastern side would almost 
certainly be C. b. brachyrhynchos.”’ 

I am fortunate, not only in having material in my own collec- 
tion, which substantiates Ridgway’s belief, but in also having had 
access, thanks to my obliging friends, to specimens and data which 
also show that his belief is essentially correct. 

] have been able to study fourteen Crow skins from the eastern 
side of the Rockies in Colorado, six males and eight females; of 
the males three are typical brachyrhynchos, two are clearly hesperis, 
and the last is mainly brachyrhynchos, but with weaker bill and 
tarsus than is ordinarily found with that subspecies. It is of 
interest to note that this last specimen was taken in Weld County 
close to the locality whence came the two previously mentioned 
hesperis skins. It is much more difficult to allocate the females of 
this group of skins; however four are more typically subspecies 
brachyrhynchos than is another female in my collection which I 
collected many years ago in New York, and another female is also 
of this subspecies, but with a weak bill, while the remaining three 


202 Beretotp, The Crow in Colorado. [April 


are too near the dividing line to be definitely located as to sub- 
species, all showing characters of one or of the other of the two 
forms uader study, in varying degrees of intensity. 

I have been able to study but one Crow skin from the western 
slope in Colorado, to-wit, a skin in my collection, which was taken 
at Ignacio, Colorado, in October, 1917, by my friend and colleague, 
Dr. Walter L. Mattick; fortunately it is the skin of a male, and is 
typical hesperis. 

We are now on firm ground; those skins from the eastern slope 
which are most likely to be characteristic of a given subspecies, 
to-wit, males, show that both brachyrhynchos and hesperis are to be 
found on that slope, and the Ignacio skin proves that hesperis 
occurs on the western slope. 

Hence one can say now that both Corvus brachyrhynchos brachy- 
rhynchos and Corvus brachyrhynchos hesperis are to be included in 
future lists of Colorado birds. 

The common Crow is normally a bird of moderately large and 
fairly dense timber, a growth found in Colorado only along the 
larger streams and in the mountains; if one plot the Crow stations 
of Colorado on a map, it at once becomes patent that most, if not 
ali, of these stations are to be found along the courses and head- 
waters of the State’s larger streams. This fact seems to lend color 
and support to the idea that subspecies brachyrhynchos probably 
penetrated Colorado from the east by following the larger streams 
towards the mountains, for it is along these rivers that one finds 
trees to the Crow’s liking, and too, Crows are increasingly more 
common as one travels eastward along these watercourses. It 
would seem reasonable to believe that along similar natural “ crow”’ 
highways hesperis would find its way eastward from the Pacific 
side into Colorado. 

The smaller size, alone, of hesperis, often makes it distinguishable 
in the field, a fact which first came to my attention while in the 
“hills” on the Gila River in New Mexico, in 1906. During the 
same year I saw a considerable flock of Crows immediately south 
of Antonito, Colorado; I was then again impressed by the smaller 
size of these southern Colorado and New Mexico Crows. I now 


believe these Antonito Crows were subspecies hesperis; Antonito- 


is on (or very close) to the Rio Grande River, which drains part 


i 
( 
| 
| 
| 
i 
t 
f 
! 
{ 


a | Beratoip, The Crow in Colorado. 203 


of the Atlantic-Gulf of Mexico watershed, part of which watershed 
forms the western portion of Texas, an area included in the present 
known range of hesperis. It does not seem unreasonable to believe 
that hesperis works its way from western Texas, up along the Rio 
Grande, finally reaching the vicinity of Antonito, and also the San 
Luis Valley. In support of this latter view | am permitted to say 
that Mrs. Jesse Stevenson of Monte Vista, Colorado, recently saw a 
Crow for the first time in twenty-five years in this valley, and was 
at once impressed with its small size as compared with those she 
formerly studied in the East. 

As mentioned above, it is clear that hesperts occurs on both sides 
of the Rocky Mountains in Colorado. Now one must ask if sub- 
species brachyrhynchos occurs on the western slope as well as on 
the eastern slope. 

1 cannot even inferentially decide whether or not subspecies 
brachyrhynchos reaches the west side of the Rockies in Colorado; 
there is but one reference to it in literature, known to me, as occur- 
ring on the western slope of Colorado, to-wit, that by Warren (20) 
who listed the Crows of Gunnison County as subspecies brachy- 
rhynchos, doing it, however, as a matter of expediency only, as he 
took no specimens. If this subspecies does range to the west side 
of the Rocky Mountains in Colorado, | believe it will be found in 
northwestern Colorado, coming in as a straggler from Wyoming. 
Records of the Crow from northwestern Colorado and southwestern 
Wyoming are lacking (21), or at least unknown to me. 

One can hazard the guess that the Crows of southeastern Colo- 
rado are subspecies brachyrhynchos, but hesperis may also be found 
in that area, coming in as an infiltration from Texas. I am con- 
vinced that hesperis works its way up from the Lower Rio Grande 
Valley, along the eastern foothills, finally reaching, as we now know, 
as far north as Weld County. 

It is highly desirable that a considerable series of Crow skins be 
collected from Colorado, embracing specimens especially from the 
western portions of the State, and also from the southern border, 
to the end that the exact distribution of subspecies brachyrhynchos 
and hesperis be definitely delimited for Colorado. 


204 Bereroutp, The Crow in Colorado. reer 


RESUME. 


].— Jt can now be said categorically that the Crow occurs in 
Colorado in the guise of two subspecies, viz., brachyrhynchos and 
hesperis, both being found on the eastern slope, and only the latter 
on the western slope of the Rocky Mountains. 

1l.— The above conclusion stands if my determinations of the 
skins | have studied be correct; if my determinations be incorrect 
they show that the criteria by which these two subspecies are 
differentiated, are too subtile and refined for an ordinary ornitholo- 
gist like myself to grasp and apply, or that the described differences 
between these two subspecies break down with the Crows found 
in Weld County. 


Measurements of hesperis skins (8: millimeters). 


Bill 
PO ga ee 
Locality Sex Wing Tail Length Depth Tarsus 
Weld Co. fon 303 WAZ 49 18 57 
. . of 312 178 45 17 56 
Ignacio ot Sulf 183 44 17 53 


BIBLIOGRAPHY. 


1. AIKEN: Proc. Boston Soc. Nat. Hist., XV, p. 193 et seq. 

2. Ripeway: Field and Forest, June 1877, p. 208. 

3. SrepHeNs: Bull. Nutt. Ornith. Club, ui (1878), p. 94. 

4. Drew: Bull. Nutt. Ornith. Club, vi (1881), p. 148, and Auk, Jan., 
1885, p. 16. 

5. Ripa@way: Man. N. A. Birds, 1887, p. 362. 

6. Auk: July, 1908, p. 348. 

7. Ripeway: Birds No. and Mid. ened vol, i, p. 270 et seq. 

8. Morrison: Ornith. and Odlogist, July, 1888, p. 107. 

9. Morrison: Ornith. and Odlogist, xiv (1889), p. 147. 

10. Cooxr: Condor, July, 1912, p. 147. 

11. Hersey anp RocKwE.u: Condor, xi (July—Aug. 1909), p. 118. 

12. Warren: Condor, Jan. 1910, p. 34. 

13. Scuatrer: Birds of Colo., 1912. 

14. Warren: Condor, Jan. 1909, p. 15. 


ee XX ol Lewis, Winter Robins in Nova Scotia. 205 


15. Lincoitn: Birds of Yuma Co., Proc. Colo. Mus. Nat. Hist., Dec. 
1915, p. 9. 

16. Bertrs: Univ. Colo. Studies, X, No. 4, 1913, p. 203. 

17. Warren: Auk, Apr. 1910, p. 147. 

18. Henperson: Annot. List Birds Boulder Co., Univ. Colo. Studies, 
Vol. vi. No. 3, p. 233. 

19. Drew et Au.: Ornith. and Odlogist, Oct., 1889, p. 147. 

20. Warren: Auk, July, 1916, p. 306. 

21. Kyicur: Birds of Wyoming, Univ. Wyo., Bull. No. 55, 1902, p. 109. 

22. Cooker: Birds of Colorado, Colo. State Agric. Col. Bull. No. 37, 
March, 1897. 

23. Warren: Condor, May, 1912, p. 97. 


WINTER ROBINS IN NOVA SCOTIA. 


BY HARRISON F. LEWIS. 


NEARLY every winter a few stray Robins are observed in Nova 
Scotia, and occasionally a small flock has been noted as present at 
that season, although my personal observations here during the six 
winters immediately previous to that of 1917-18 do not include 
a half dozen individuals of this species. During the winter of 1917— 
18, however, Robins were reported in such large numbers and over 
so great an area as to constitute an occurrence quite unique in the 
recorded ornithology of the province. 

One Robin was seen by me about December 20, 1917, but 
unfortunately, the exact date of the observation was not recorded. 
In the last week of January several reports of Robins seen near 
Halifax were noted, and in the first two or three days of February 
numerous additional reports were received and | saw a few birds 
of this species myself. 1t quickly became evident that Robins 
were being observed near Halifax, at least, in numbers very extra- 
ordinary for the season. 

As soon as it was realized that the occurrence was of an unusual 
character, steps were taken to secure a record of it. It is much 
to be regretted that, owing to the fact of the casual appearance of 
Robins here in ordinary winters, this realization was not reached 


206 Lewis, Winter Robins in Nova Scotia. hess 


a few days sooner, for, in that case, attempts to obtain records 
from others would, no doubt, have been more successful, and my 
own observations would in all probability have been more extensive. 
lt so happened that, during the time when the Robins were most 
abundant in this immediate vicinity, military duties, always 
exacting, became unusually strenuous, and for a while little thought 
or effort could be given by me to the birds. Nevertheless, as 
many observations as possible were made, and the observations 
of those with whom I came in contact were recorded. At the same 
time, 1 endeavored to obtain information from other parts of the 
province, and to that end sent numerous inquiries to those whom 
I knew to be interested in birds or who were likely to be interested. 

Here 1 was greatly hindered by the present condition of the 
observation and study of birds in Nova Scotia. 1 was forced to 
realize that there are less than a dozen active bird students in the 
province, and, although there are doubtless many more than that 
who would note with spontaneous interest the occurrence of Robins 
here in midwinter, there is no organization by which I could learn 
of the identity of such individuals when personally unknown to me, 
or through which I could get into communication with them. 1 
was forced to depend very largely upon blind guess, while following 
up every clue which 1 found, and the resulting observations, 
though fairly numerous, are no doubt but a small part of what 
might have been obtained had there been, for instance, even one 
trained and active observer in each county. This fact should be 
kept in mind when considering the records obtained as evidence 
of the degree of abundance of the robins. 

To all who contributed observations or information concerning 
the Robins | wish to express my thanks. I am also under obliga- 
tion to the Amherst ‘News-Sentinel,’ the Truro ‘Daily News,’ 
and the Glace Bay ‘Gazette’ for publishing, on the initiative of 
their respective editors, requests that information concerning 
winter Robins be sent to me. These requests were the means of 
providing me with no inconsiderable amount of valuable data. 

It may be argued that observations learned of in this way are 
untrustworthy and therefore valueless, for, of necessity, I am not 
personally acquainted with many of those who so kindly furnished 
me with information, and I cannot definitely vouch for the skill 


‘Scan Lewis, Winter Robins in Nova Scotia. 207 


in bird observation of each and every one of them. It was con- 
sidered, however, that, in a case of this kind, such observations 
might be accepted, at least as evidence tending to show a certain 
general condition, for nearly every intelligent adult is able to 
identify a Robin. Certainly, no species here is capable of more 
accurate popular identification, for even the well-known Crow 
is confused with the common Northern Raven by all but a few. 
The observations obtained are summarized in the following list, 
which shows, in each case, the date of the observation, the locality 
in which it was made, the name of the observer or source of in- 
formation, and the exact or approximate number of birds seen. 
Care has been taken to indicate any indefiniteness, so that no 
data are recorded as definite which were not so reported to me 
or observed by me. Every endeavor has been made to have the 
observations here recorded as definite as possible, but a number of 
somewhat indefinite observations are included because they are 
important, either geographically or temporally, in a report of 
this nature. With the exception of those observations where 
names of newspapers are quoted, and of one observation reported 
by Prof. H. G. Perry and one reported by Mr. W. Archibald, the 
name of the actual observer accompanies each observation. 


December 20 (about). Bedford, N.S. (H. F. Lewis) 1. 

December 27. Sydney Mines, N. S. (Miss Dawe) 1. 

January 1. Ohio, Yarmouth, Co., N. S. (Mr. Cann) about 12. 

January 1. Yarmouth, N. S. (Mr. H. B. Vickery) 1. 

January 5 (about). Upper Musquodoboit, Halifax Co., N. S. 
(Miss Leslie) “large flock.” 

January 16. Glace Bay, N.S. (Mr. A. A. McDonald) 12. 

“January.” Bridgetown, N.S. (Mr. H. F. Williams) “several.” 

Daily January 20-February 6. Brookfield, Colchester Co., N. S. 
(Mr. Frank Little) 2. 

January 24. Dutch Village Road, Halifax, N. S. (Mr. A. E. 
Brooks) 1. 

“Last of January.”’ Belmont, Colchester Co., N. S. (Miss Ruth 
Lear) 4. 

January 26. Sydney, N. S. (Rev. T. A. Rodger) 12. 

January 26. Dartmouth, N.S. (Mr. J. E. Smallman) 12. 


208 Lewis, Winter Robins in Nova Scotia. Auk 


January 27 (about). Yarmouth, N. S. (‘Yarmouth Herald’) 
of January 29) “several flocks.” 

January 27. Dartmouth, N. S. (Sgt. R. Smallman) about 8. 

January 27 or February 3. Pugwash, N.S. (Miss B. Fullerton) 1. 

January 27. Point Pleasant Park, Halifax, N.S. (Sgt. A. Cossham) 1. 

January 27. William St., Halifax, N. S. (Miss H. Paul) 1. 

Daily, January 27-February 8. Truro, N.S. (Prof. L. A. DeWolfe) 2. 

January 28 (about). Sydney, N.S. (Mr. Geo. McLeod) “several.” 

January 28. Sydney, N.S. (Rev. T. A. Rodger) 20. 

January 28. Amherst, N. S. (Miss D. Hurtley) 1. 

January 31. Truro, N.S. (Miss E. Waller) 1. 

Through January and first half of February. Truro, N. S. (Miss 
L. Schurman). 3-4. 

February 1 (about). Pugwash, N. 8. (Mrs. Mcl vor) 2. 

February 1 (about). Carleton, Yarmouth Co., N. S. (Miss Mary 
Wyman) 1. 

February 1. Yarmouth, N.S. (‘Yarmouth Telegram’ of February 
1) several (killed by owl). 

February 1. Dartmouth, N. S. (H. F. Lewis) 2. 

February 2. Bedford, N.S. (H. F. Lewis) 1. 

February 3. Jubilee Road, Halifax, N.S. (Sgt. W. J. Alsop) 3. 

February 3. Young Av., Halifax, N.S. (Sgt. H. P. Eisner) 1. 

February 3. “ Africville,”’ Halifax, N.S. (Sgt. A. G. Cossham) 1. 

February 3. Ocean Terminals, Halifax, N. S. (Mr. C. Churchill) 
25-30. 

February 3. Kempt Road, Halifax, N. S. (H. F. Lewis) 1. 

February 3. “The Common,” Halifax, N.S. (Sgt. J. A. Fraser) 1. 

February 3. Dartmouth, N. 8. (H. F. Lewis) 1. 

February 4. Dartmouth, N. 8. (H. F. Lewis) 1. 

February 5 (about). Wolfville, N. S. (reported by Prof. H. G. 
Perry) 12-18. 

February 5. Gottingen St., Halifax, N. S. (‘Evening Mail’ of 
February 14) 1. 

February 6. Truro, N.S. (Prof. E. C. Allen) 2. 

February 8. Loganville, Pictou Co., N.S. (Mr. Wm. McNeil) 4-5. 

February 8. South End, Halifax, N.S. (H. F. Lewis) 5. 

February 9. Truro, N. S. (Prof. E. C. Allen) 1. 

February 11. Truro, N.S. (Prof. E. C. Allen) 1. 


XT) Lewis, Winter Robins in Nova Scotia. 209 


February 12. Dartmouth, N.S. (H. F. Lewis) 1. 

February 13 (about). Glenwood, Yarmouth Co., N. S., (Mr. R. 
M. Sargent) about 12. . 

February 13 and for some time previously. Pictou, N.S. (Mr. A. 
Seott Dawson) 30-40. 

February 16. Amherst, N.S. (Mrs. H. T. Holmes) 2. 

February 18. Dartmouth, N.S. (H. F. Lewis) 1. 

“All winter,” previous to February 19. Wolfville, N. S. (Mr. 
Gormley) “a few.” - 

February 21. Antigonish, N. 8. (Mr. R. Archibald) 1. 

February 24. Pictou, N. S. (reported by Mr. W. Archibald) 
“several.” 


February 25. ‘The Common,’ Halifax, N.S. (Mr. H. B. Vickery) 1. 


lt will be noted that the points from which Robins are reported 
are scattered throughout the province, from Sydney and Glace 
Bay in the east to Yarmouth in the west, and from Amherst, on the 
New Brunswick boundary, to places such as Halifax and Glenwood, 
on the south shore. The intervening parts of the province are 
fairly well represented in the observations, so that these may be 
held to indicate a condition general in Nova Scotia. 1 am per- 
suaded that the fact that there are considerable areas, such as the 
three counties of Shelburne, Queens, and Lunenburg, from which 
no observations are recorded, is due to the absence of observers 
there, or to my failure to get into communication with any who 
may have been there, rather than to the absence of winter Robins 
from those regions. This belief is strengthened by the fact that, 
in every place in the province where trained observers were known 
to be situated, winter Robins were reported by them. 

In the case of observations made in Halifax 1 have recorded the 
street or part of the city where the birds were seen, so as to show 
that the distribution in the Halifax area was general, and that it 
is improbable that the same few birds were being recorded repeat- 
edly by different observers. This is particularly important in 
connection with the observations made on February 3, on which 
date many observers saw Robins in and near Halifax. No two of 
the observations recorded for that day are from the same part of 
the city. It should be borne in mind, also, when considering these 


210 Lewis, Winter Robins in Nova Scotia. ial 
records, that Dartmouth and Halifax are really parts of one area, 
for they are on opposite sides of Halifax Harbor, less than a mile 
apart. 

With reference to the observations made in Halifax and Dart- 
mouth, 1 wish to add that the number of indefinite observations 
received or learned of was very great. In the presence of a very 
considerable number of definite observations from that area, it 
was not thought best to make use of these indefinite ones, but a 
very fair idea of their nature and extent was gained through con- 
versations, intentional and accidental, and through newspaper 
reports. After considering the matter carefully, 1 am of the 
opinion that a conservative estimate would place the number of 
adults who, during the winter of 1917-18, saw Robins in Dartmouth 
or Halifax at forty per cent of the resident adult population of all 
classes in the two communities. As scarcely any of these people 
were intentionally looking for Robins, this would indicate a degree 
of abundance extremely high for the time of year. 

Mr. A. Scott Dawson, in his letter of February 13 concerning the 
large flock of Robins reported by him as remaining for some time 
near his residence at Pictou, says, “They spend the most of their 
time on the willows, and are picking at the bark; no doubt they 
are getting insects, etc., there. They also visit the haw bushes 
and the holly, as they eat both haws and berries.” Those seen 
by Mr. Wm. McNeil at Loganville on February 8 are said to have 
been seeking food on a manure pile. Mrs. H. T. Holmes reports 
that the two Robins seen by her at Amherst on February 16 “were 
busily picking among some hay in search of food.” Rev. T. A. 
Rodger states that those seen by him in Sydney were fed by his 
children with crumbs, and Mr. Frank Little, writing from Brook- 
field on March 25, says, “....this one [winter] between January 
20 and February 6 we fed from our back door two Robins and a 
flock of nine Pine Grosbeaks. 1t was very cold here then and both 
came daily between those dates.” Several of the birds seen by me 
were in hawthorn trees, and were feeding on the fruit, which hung 
on the trees in considerable quantities. The two Robins seen by 
me at Dartmouth on February 1 were hunting along the upper edge 
of a low, sandy bank, where some plants of the upland cranberry 
remained uncovered by the snow. When | examined these plants, 


eel __ Lewts, Winter Robins in Nova Scotia. Zt 


a few minutes later, I could find no fruit upon them. On February 
12 I saw one Robin in a mountain ash tree, planted for ornamental 
purposes, but it flew from the tree at my approach. There was 
no fruit remaining on that tree. 

In several instances it was reported that the Robins were as 
bright and as lively as in the springtime, but the birds seen by other 
observers were stated to be slow and stupid, as though weak or 
numb. Miss Dorothy Hurtley, in a letter dated February 20, 
says of a Robin seen in Amherst on January 28, “I thought I could 
catch it, as it was stupid with cold, but it evaded me by flying a 
little way ahead of me.” Nearly all the Robins which I saw 
appeared to be very loth to move, and when finally “flushed” their 
flight was slow, short, and uncertain. Besides the killing of some 
Robins at Yarmouth by an owl, two instances of Robins dying were 
reported. In a letter dated February 19, Mrs. H. T. Holmes says 
of Robins recently seen by her at Amherst, “One, while flying, 
seemed to falter and flutter to the ground. Hoping to revive it, 
it was brought in, but soon died, possibly starved.” Miss Bertha 
Fullerton, of Pugwash, states, in a letter dated February 26, 
“My sister is one of the teachers here, and one morning when she 
went to school there was a frozen Robin on her desk. Likely some 
oi the boys had put it there.” 

In order to present as clearly and briefly as possible the fluctua- 
tions in the number of Robins reported as observed at different 
times during the past winter, and to facilitate comparison with the 
local meteorological conditions at any part of that season, I have 
prepared three graphs, which are shown herewith. They cover 
the time from December 2, 1917, to March 16, 1918. The upper 
graph indicates, as closely as possible, the number of Robins 
reported to me as seen in Nova Scotia in each week of that period. 
The second graph shows the total number of inches of snowfall at 
Halifax for each week of the time considered, and the third graph 
presents the weekly averages of the daily minimum temperatures 
(Fahr.) at Halifax. To facilitate comparison, this last graph 
has been inverted, so that lower temperature is represented in the 
same way as is heavier snowfall or a greater abundance of Robins. 
For the data used in preparing the two lower graphs I am indebted 
to Mr. Fred P. Ronnan, official meteorological observer at Halifax. 


WEEK ENDING 
EC, _ JAN. — FEB. Sia 
g 8 2 2 S 2 19 26 2.9 16 25 2000 


PY 9 a el Kae Pe rae Ka ee 
) ee) ee 


era Nee rT 
a Ea AA eA Re 
PS an lake. Ga a ee ees ka 


WEEKLY TOTAL SNOWFALL (INCHES) 


aca (a re a A | 


FEE aa eee 
eae 


aN 
a 
— 


WEEKLY AVERAGE OF DAILY MINIMUM TEMP 


212 


eed Lewis, Winter Robins in Nova Scotia. 213 


From the first graph it is readily apparent that few Robins 
were noted in the province prior to the middle of January. After 
that time the number seen increased rapidly, reaching its maximum 
about February 1, and decreasing a little more gradually until 
about February 20, after which date few Robins were seen. On 
account of the scarcity of observers, before mentioned, this line 
does not show the total number of Robins which were present about 
the inhabited parts of Nova Scotia in any week, nor can its rela- 
tion to such total numbers be readily determined. It does serve, 
however, as a moderately correct indicator of the relative abun- 
dance of the Robins about the inhabited parts of the province in one 
week as compared with another. 

The graph indicating the weekly snowfall appears as a line of 
abrupt changes and sharp angles, showing that the variation in the 
snowfall from week to week was very marked. Somewhat con- 
trary to expectation, no relation between this line and the Robin 
graph appears to be traceable. It is possible that, if the average 
depth of snow on the ground in each week could be depicted graphi- 
cally, the line thus formed would show more direct relation to the 
weekly abundance of Robins, but, unfortunately, no data from 
which such a graph could be prepared are available. 

The temperature graph appears to correspond very well with 
the slopes of the Robin graph, especially in the part of the winter 
prior to February 20. A period of low temperature in the week 
ending January 5 is found to correspond with a noticeable increase 
in the number of Robins reported, while higher temperature during 
the week ending January 12 accompanies a decrease in the number 
of Robins seen. From January 12 to February 2 increasingly 
lower average temperatures are contemporaneous with an increas- 
ing abundance of Robins observed, and the extremes of both graphs 
are reached in the same week. In the week ending February 9 
both lines fall slightly lower, and in the next week there is a very 
considerable decline in both. From that time on the relationship 
appears less close, for a reason hereinafter stated. Such a close 
correspondence between the two lines as has been pointed out, 
however, seems most unlikely to be wholly fortuitous, and would 
appear to indicate that temperature is a greater factor than had 
been supposed in causing these birds to seek the neighborhood of 
man. 


214 Lewis, Winter Robins in Nova Scotia. fen 


The question as to why these Robins were so commonly observed 
in Nova Scotia last winter is one which at present does not seem to 
be capable of definite answer, for too many of the possible contribu- 
tory causes are unknown. Some efforts toward a solution of the 
problem are, however, here submitted. 

In the first place, it would appear fair to presume that these 
Robins were not, as was popularly supposed, misguided arrivals 
from the south at an unusually early date. It seems probable that 
they had remained in Nova Scotia, or in regions still further north, 
from the time of the fall migration until the time when they were 
seen here. The fact that few were seen between December 1 and 
the middle of January is explainable by the supposition that during 
that time they were living in the deep woods, miles from any 
human being except an occasional Indian or a gang of lumbermen, 
and that they were then more widely scattered. In the woods at 
that time large quantities of juniper berries and mountain ash 
berries would be available for their food supply. 

Whether more Robins than usual remained in Nova Scotia in 
this way last fall seems an open question. Mr. R. W. Tufts, of 
Wolfville, N. S., in a letter dated February 13, 1918, which was 
published in the Halifax ‘“ Morning Chronicle” of February 15, 
gives it as his opinion that there was no unusual number of Robins 
in the province last winter. He attributes the great number of 
Robins seen in the province at that season solely to the fact that 
the snowfall was heavier than usual, which, he says, covered the 
juniper bushes which supplied the Robins with most of their usual 
winter food, and so forced them to seek sustenance in the inhabited 
areas of the province, where they were more easily observed. In 
opposition to this theory it should be noted that the snowfall of 
last winter, though heavy, was not of a record-breaking character, 
while | am informed by Mr. Harry Piers, Curator of the Nova 
Scotia Provincial Museum, and a veteran Nova Scotian ornitholo- 
gist, that the abundance of Robin observations during the winter 
of 1917-18 is, so far as is shown by his records or memory, absolutely 
without parallel. I have experienced some difficulty in obtaining 
records of snowfall for years other than the more recent ones, but 
the monthly snowfalls at Halifax for the winter of 1904-05, for 
instance, compare with those of the winter of 1917-18 as follows. 


XN! Lewis, Winter Robins in Nova Scotia. 215 


December January February March Total. 
Total snowfall 1904-057" 42673.) °4559)) 137.45 — 16") fh i20 2 


in inches 1917-18 33.4 15.1 . 42.8 30.2 121.5 


Although the totals for the two winters are practically alike, yet 
it will be observed that by February 1, 1918, after a snowfall of 
48.5 inches in December, 1917, and January, 1918, Robins were 
observed as fairly common throughout Nova Scotia, whereas a 
snowfall of 72.2 inches in December, 1904, and January, 1905, 
appears to have caused no unusual observations of Robins in the 
province, nor is there record, so far as I can discover, of any larger 
number of these birds than usual being seen here at any time that 
winter. These facts would seem to tend to show either that in the 
winter of 1917-18 an unusual number of Robins did remain in this 
part of Canada, or that their appearance in the settled parts of the 
country was due to other causes than the heavy snowfall, or that 
both of these hypotheses are true. 

It has been suggested to me by Prof. E. C. Allen, of Truro, N. S., 
that many of the Robins seen in Nova Scotia this winter may have 
spent the first part of the winter outside of this province, in the 
neighboring, wilder regions to the northward. In proposing this 
theory he says, “Granting that scattered Robins do remain [in 
winter] in regions north of Nova Scotia (a fact concerning which I 
have no evidence), would not the continued cold weather tend to 
drive them south, and, owing to the contour of the coast, might 
they not hesitate to cross the water south of us in winter, and there- 
fore be more or less congested here?...It might be argued that 
Robins would not hesitate to cross the Atlantic strip of water south 
of us, as many thousands do cross in the fall. On the other hand, 
might it not be possible that in winter the migratory instinct might 
not be sufficiently strong to carry them straight out to sea over 
rough water?” There is need of data from New Brunswick, 
Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland concerning winter 
Robins to throw additional light on this interesting theory. 

If the number of Robins which remained here last winter was 
greater than usual, the cause of this condition is wholly problemati- 
eal. I have not had such opportunities as I desire for observing 
the abundance of juniper berries and mountain ash berries in the 


216 Lewis, Winter Robins in Nova Scotia. hes 


wilder parts of Nova Scotia last fall or this spring, but no unusual 
abundance or scarcity of Robin food has been revealed by such 
observations as I have been able to make. It may be that the 
migratory instinct failed last fall in a greater number of Robins 
than usual, and thus more of them were influenced to remain here, 
or it may be that subtle meteorological forces caused a change in the 
migration of some of these birds. 

It has already been noted that low temperatures seem to have 
accompanied the appearance of the Robins. In what way the 
temperature may have caused the Robins to seek the inhabited 
districts I cannot say, unless it might be by temporarily congealing 
the surface of swampy and springy areas, which ordinarily remain 
open in winter weather, and from which the Robins may have 
obtained food when the rest of the country was covered with snow. 
Further investigation appears to be much needed here. While 
considering temperature, it is worthy of note that the past winter 
was exceptional for one other thing besides the unusual numbers of 
Robins seen — that is, for its long, unbroken periods of low tem- 
perature. A direct relation between these two phenomena may 
be suggested. In other parts of northern North America this low 
temperature seems to have caused an unusual scarcity of winter 
birds, but that was not the case here. 

After February 25, although the weather remained severe, there 
appear to have been no observations of Robins in the province until 
the arrival of the first spring migrants, noted at Halifax on March 
26. This may be due to the birds’ having finally left us for a more 
congenial climate, but I am strongly inclined to believe that it was 
caused by the destruction of practically all the Robins in the prov- 
ince, their last available supplies of food having been exhausted. 
This would account for the disagreement between the Robin graph 
and the temperature graph after February 20. Although only 
two dead Robins, other than those killed by an owl, were reported, 
yet scarcely more than this would be expected, since most of the 
birds would probably die in out-of-the-way places, and would soon 
be covered by snow or devoured by animals. 

It is hoped that the facts and suggestions here presented may 
throw some light on the subject of winter Robins and perhaps 
help to point out some new lines of inquiry, so that before long 


Sill Prenarp, Beebe’s ‘Tropical Wild Life.’ Pal Pe 


additional observations and investigations may make the full 
truth of the matter clear. The observations of the winter of 1917— 
18 were unusual, but it is often by a study of the unusual that the 
usual is understood. 


REMARKS ON BEEBE’S ‘TROPICAL WILD LIFE.’ 


BY THOMAS E. PENARD. 


In a previous number of ‘The Auk’ (1918, XXXV, p. 91), Dr. 
Witmer Stone reviewed briefly this interesting volume published 
by the New York Zodlogical Society, presenting the first season’s 
work at the tropical research station, established in British Guiana 
under the direction of Mr. William Beebe. The results obtained 
by Mr. Beebe and his associates are of such interest and importance, 
and the work in general so deserving of the reviewer’s praise, that 
I feel rather reluctant in offering a few slight corrections. My 
observations are not intended as criticisms, and I would hardly 
have thought it worth while to express them, were it not for the 
fact that the very excellence and authoritative character of Mr. 
Beebe’s book might perhaps have the effect of creating a few mis- 
leading impressions in regard to some minor matters with which 
it deals. 

In Chapter VIII Mr. Beebe gives a list of the birds of the Bartica 
District, in which, for the sake of completeness, he includes some 
species collected by Whitely at the same place, and listed by Salvin 
in ‘The Ibis’ for 1885 and 1886. Twenty-two species are starred 
to indicate that they are new to the Colony of British Guiana. 
Of this number, however, at least eighteen have been previously 
recorded from various localities in the Colony as follows: 


Columba plumbea plumbea Viem.or.— Listed by Salvin (Ibis, 
1886, p. 173) from Bartica Grove and Camacusa. Percival (Birds of the 
Botanic Gardens, 1893, Argosy reprint, p. 6) says that it is ‘‘ unfrequent in 
Gardens, though a common species.’’ Dawson (Hand-list of the Birds 
of British Guiana, 1916, p. 51) lists it as a Colonial species. Some of these 


218 PENARD, Beebe’s ‘Tropical Wild Life. Pes 


records may, however, apply to Gnenas purpureotincta (Ridgway). The 
form inhabiting British Guiana is G’nenas plumbea locutrix (Max.). 

Ibycter americanus (BoppAErT). Bonson (P. Z. S., 1851, p. 56) 
records it from Br. Guiana under the name of ‘“‘ Red-headed Carracarra.” 
It is listed by Salvin (J. c., 1886, p. 77) from Bartica Grove and Camacusa; 
by Quelch (Timehri, 1890, p. 102 and p. 334) from Demerara Falls and 
Upper Berbice; by Chubb (The Birds of British Guiana, 1916, 1. p. 216, 
McConnell coll.) from Kamakabra River, etc., giving range in Br. Guiana; 
and by Dawson (I. c., p. 7). 

Urochroma batavica (BoppAErtT).— Lloyd (Timehri, 1895, p. 272, sub 
nom. Urochroma cingulata) mentions it as formerly very plentiful in the 
neighborhood of ‘‘ Groete Creek,” and (I. c., p. 278) gives local range as 
Essequibo River and N. W. District; F. P. and A. P. Penard (De Vogels 
van Guyana, 1908, 1, p. 523) say these birds are not unfrequently seen in 
Surinam and Demerara during the Dry Season; Chubb (I. c., p. 386, sub 
nom. T'ouit batavica) records specimens from Supenaam River and other 
localities, and gives range in Br. Guiana; and Dawson (I. c., p. 20) lists it 
as the ‘‘ Black-winged Parakeet.” 

Ceryle americana americana. (GMELIN).— Recorded by Salvin 
(l. c., 1886, p. 60) from Bartica Grove and other localities; by Sharpe (Cat. 
Birds Br. Mus., 1892, xvii, p. 189) from Demerara River; by Chubb 
(l. c., p. 848) from Bonasika River, ete., giving range in Br. Guiana; and 
by Dawson (l. c., p. 16). 

Cypseloides fumigatus SrrreupeL.— F. P. and A. P. Penard (I. c., 
1910, ii, p. 95) state that there are specimens in the Georgetown Museum, 
and Dawson (I. c., p. 34) lists it as a Colonial species. 

Tapera nevia (LiInNé).— Schomburgk (Reis. 1848, ii. p. 713, sub 
nom. Diplopterus galeritus) says that it is abundant in coast regions. 
Quelch (Timehri, 1891, p. 95; Reprint, p. 27) speaks of it as common in 
Georgetown; and Percival (l. c., p. 9) states that its frequent plaintive 
note ‘‘ Wife-sick ”’ is one of the most familiar garden sounds. It has also 
been recorded by Salvin (l. c., 1886, p. 64) from Bartica Grove and Roraima; 
by Shelley (Cat. Birds Br. Mus., 1891, xix, p. 423) from Georgetown; by 
Chubb (J. c., p. 443) from Ituribisi River, etc., giving range in Br. Guiana; 
and by Dawson (l. c., p. 23). The Br. Guiana form stands, Tapera nevia 
nevia (Linné). 

Pteroglossus aracari aracari (LiInNé).— Schomburgk (I. c., p. 720) 
states that the species is tolerably abundant in Br. Guiana. It has been 
recorded by Salvin (/. c., 1886, p. 65) from Bartica Grove; by Sclater 
(Cat. Birds Br. Mus. 1891, xix, p. 188) from Demerara; by Chubb (I. c., 
p. 458, sub nom. Pteroglossus roraime) from Roraima etc., giving range in 
Br. Guiana; and by Dawson (Il. c., p. 22). The form inhabiting Br. 
Guiana is P. a. atricollis (P. L. S. Miller)— see Bangs and Penard (Bull 
M. C. Z., 1918, p. 55). 

Chloronerpes rubiginosus (Swarnson).—Schomburgk (I. c., p. 
715) says he found it throughout Br. Guiana. It has been recorded by 


eel Penarp, Beebe’s ‘Tropical Wild Life.’ 219 


Salvin (J. c., 1886, p. 59) from Bartica Grove, Merumé Mountains, and 
Roraima; by Chubb (I. c., p. 483) from Anarika River, etc., giving range 
in Br. Guiana; and by Dawson (I. c., p. 24). 

Thamnophilus amazonicus ScLater.— Schomburgk (I. c., p. 687) 
states that it inhabits the low bushes of the coast woods. It has been 
recorded by Salvin (I. c., 1885, p. 423) from Bartica Grove and Camacusa; 
by Sclater (Cat. Birds Br. Mus., 1890, xv, p. 199) from Takutu River 
(Salvin-Godman coll.); by Quelch (Animal Life in Br. Guiana, 1901, p. 
182); and by Dawson (I. c., p. 26), who stars the species, indicating that 
there are no representatives in the Museum at Georgetown. All these 
authors, except Sclater, refer to this species as Thamnophilus ruficollis 
[= amazonicus 9 ?]. 

Dysithamnus schistaceus (p’OrBicNy). F. P. and A. P. Penard 
(l. c., 1910, ii, p. 308) state that there are specimens in the Museum at 
Georgetown. Dawson (I. c., p. 26) lists it as a Colonial species. 

Automolus infuscatus Scuater.— Recorded by Salvin (/. c., 1885, 
p. 420, sub nom. Automolus sclateri), from Bartica Grove, stating that the 
specimens are rather smaller than those from the type locality, with 
faint indication of striation on the throat; and by Sclater (Cat. Birds Br. 
Mus. 1890, xv, p. 95, sub nom. Awtomolus sclatert) from Camacusa and 
Bartica Grove. Automolus sclateri (Pelzeln) is a pure synonym of Auto- 
molus infuscatus Sclater, having been proposed by Pelzeln (Orn. Bras., 
1867, i. p. 41) on the assumption that the name Automolus infuscatus was 
preoccupied by Anabates infuscatus Bonaparte, which, however, proves to 
be a nomen nudum (Cf. Hellmayr, Nov. Zool., 1905, xii, p. 279). Mr. 
Beebe lists both infuscatus and cervicalis, apparently considering them two 
distinct species, the former only being starred as new to the Colony. 
Hellmayr (Nov. Zool., 1906, xiii, p. 335) says that “the specimens of 
Automolus sclateri from British Guiana in the British Museum are abso- 
lutely identical with the type of P. cervicalis,” and states that the type of 
P. cervicalis is an immature bird. He lists the Guiana form, which differs 
from true infuscatus, as Automolus infuscatus cervicalis (Sclater), type 
locality “‘ Camacusa and Bartica Grove.” 

Apparently, then, records of A. infuscatus, A. sclateri, and A. cervicalis, 
in Br. Guiana, apply to the same bird. 

Sclerurus rufigularis Peuzein.— Hellmayr (Nov. Zool., 1906, xiii, 
p. 364) mentions an immature bird from Takutu River, Br. Guiana, and 
says (I. c., p. 365) that there is a specimen in the British Museum collected 
by Whitely at Bartica Grove. He also says that the Br. Guiana Museum 
has a o from Ourumee. 

Xiphorhynchus guttatoides (LArrESNAYE).— The form guttatoi- 
des of Colombia, is a subspecies of Xiphorhynchus guttatus Lichtenstein, 
of which the race inhabiting Br. Guiana is X. g. sororius (Berlepsch and 
Hartert), type locality Perico, Orinoco River. Berlepsch and Hartert 
(Nov. Zool., 1902, ix, p. 63), who originally described this form as Den- 
drornis rostripallens sororia, mention a specimen from Quonja, Br. Guiana, 


220 Prenarp, Beebe’s ‘Tropical Wild Life.’ Lack 


coll. Whitely, agreeing with birds from Perico. Schomburgk (I. c., p. 690, 
sub nom. Dendrocolaptes guttatus) says he found it throughout Br. Guiana; 
Salvin (1. c., 1885, p. 422), referring to it as Dendrornis guttatoides, records 
a specimen from Bartica Grove; and Dawson (I. c., p. 29) lists it under the 
same name. Quelch (Animal Life in Br. Guiana, 1901, p. 177), speaking 
of Dendrornis pardalotus and Dendrornis guttatoides, says that one or both 
of these species will invariably be found in collections made in the forest 
districts. 

Elenia guianensis BerLtepscu.— The type locality of this species 
is Camacusa, British Guiana. It has been recorded by Salvin (I. c., 1885, 
p. 295) as Elainea elegans, from Bartica Grove, Camacusa, etc.; by Sclater 
(Cat. Birds Br. Mus., 1888, xiv, p. 150) as Elainea gaimardi, from Roraima; 
and by Dawson (I. c., p. 13) as Myiopagis gaimardi. The Br. Guiana form 
now stands, Myiopagis gaimardii guianensis (Berlepsch). 

Empidochanes fuscatus cabanisi Lioraup.— Recorded by Salvin 
(l. ¢., 1885, p. 297, sub nom. Hmpidochanes olivus) from Bartica Grove; 
and by Sclater (Cat. Birds Br. Mus., 1888, xiv, p. 224, sub nom. Empi- 
donax oliva), who states that this is the northern form of EL. bimaculatus 
(Orb. and Lafr.), adding that he was doubtful whether it was really 
entitled to the name oliva. The type locality of cabanisit is Trinidad. 
The form inhabiting Cayenne is Empidochanes fuscatus fumosus Berlepsch, 
to which we suppose the Surinam bird also belongs. 

Riparia riparia (Lrvnf).— Recorded by Salvin (J. c., 1885, p. 206) 
as Cotile riparia, from Bartica Grove. 

Sporophila bouvronides (Lrsson).— Brabourne and Chubb (Birds 
of South America, 1912, i, p. 367) refer S. ocellata (Scl. and Salv.) to this 
species, and give the type locality Trinidad. References to S. ocellata in 
Guiana probably apply to the same bird which Mr. Beebe had in hand. 
Mr. Beebe also lists S. lineola (Linn.). Sharpe (Cat. Birds Br. Mus., 
1888, xii, p. 130) lists S. ocellata from Carimang River, Br. Guiana. Daw- 
son (I. c., p. 48) mentions both ocellata and lineola. 

Thraupis palmarum palmarum. (Wrep).—Schomburgk (I. c., 
p. 670, sub nom. Tanagra olivascens) states that it is abundant at the coast. 
It has been recorded by Salvin (I. c., 1885, p. 210) from Bartica Grove 
and Roraima; by Quelch (Timehri, 1891, p. 81; Reprint, p. 13) who says 
it is common in Georgetown, mentioning the species again later (Animal 
Life in Br. Guiana, 1901, p. 113); by Price (Timehri, 1891, p. 63) who 
describes the eggs; by Percival (I. c., p. 16) who states that it is “ not 
very often seen in the Gardens, though common among the innumerable 
cocoanut palms in and about town,” where the writer also has seen it; 
and by Dawson (I. c., p. 46; and Timehri, 1911, p. 272). The type locality 
of palmarum is Bahia, and judging from material examined, I would say 
that birds from Cayenne, Surinam, and Br. Guiana, differ distinctly from 
true palmarum, and are more nearly allied to, if not indistinguishable from, 
the Eastern Peruvian race, Thraupis palmarum melanoptera (Sclater). 

Saucerottia erythronota (Lesson).— With reference to this species 


| Penarp, Beebe’s ‘Tropical Wild Life.’ 221 
also marked with a star, we do not find in Mr. Beebe’s list Agyrtrina 
fimbriata fimbriata (Gmelin), which is common in Br. Guiana, and which 
has been recorded from Bartica by Chubb (I. c., p. 395). This bird has 
sometimes been confused with Saucerottia erythronota (Cf. Salvin, Cat. 
Birds Br. Mus., 1892, xvi, p. 187) and has been listed from Bartica by 
Salvin (Ibis, 1885, p. 485) under the name Agyrtria tobaci of which erythro- 
nota, type locality Trinidad, is a subspecies. 


A longer stay at Bartica, no doubt would have augmented Mr. 
Beebe’s list considerably. For instance, Mr. Chubb, in his work 
on the birds of British Guiana, records twenty-seven species in the 
McConnell Collection, which are not included in Mr. Beebe’s list. 

In Chapter XIII we find an account of the author’s ornithological 
discoveries, pertaining mostly to nests and eggs, with excellent 
photographic illustrations. Some of these discoveries, however, 
are by no means entirely new, reliable information on nests and 
eggs having been published in regard to at least twelve of the 
seventeen species discussed. Attention is called to the following 
records: ' 


Chemepelia talpacoti (TremmMinck aNp Kwnip).— Dalgleish (Proc. 
Roy. Phys. Soc. Edinburgh, 1889, x, p. 86) describes two nests, each con- 
taining two eggs, found Nov. 20, 1886, in Paraguay. Nehrkorn (Kat 
Hiersamm, 1899, p. 184) lists eggs from Paraguay, 23 X 18mm. Euler 
(Rev. Mus. Paulista, 1900, iv, p. 98) describes nests and eggs, 22.5 X 18 
mm. Ihering (Rev. Mus. Paulista, 1900, iv, p. 282) describes nest and 
eggs, and says that he found a nest built upon the deserted nest of another 
bird, containing two eggs, 22 X 17 mm. F-. P. and A. P. Penard (I. c., 
1908, i, p. 340) describe habits, nests, and eggs under C. rufipennis, assum- 
ing talpacoti and rufipennis identical in Surinam, judging from specimens 
which had been identified for them in England as rufipennis. Apparently 
there is some confusion here, and the bird identified as rufipennis was 
probably the newly described Chemepelia arthuri Bangs and Penard 
(Bull. M. C. Z. 1917, p. 45). 

Geotrygon [= Oreopelia] montana (Linn&).— Eggs listed by 
Nehrkorn (J. c., p. 186) from Rio Grande, Mexico, and Porto Rico, brown- 
ish, 27 X 21mm. F. P. and A. P. Penard (I. c., 1908, i, p. 347) say that the 
nest is very much like that of Leptoptila, placed on low branches of trees 
and in bushes; eggs, short-elliptical, brownish cream-color, 27 21.5 mm.; 
breeds in the Dry Season. Site, nest, and eggs, have also been described 
by Lawrence (Proc. U. 8S. N. M., 1879, i, p. 276), by Wells (Ibid. 1887, 
p. 625), and by Scott (Auk, 1892, ix, p. 124, quoting Taylor). 

Porzana albicollis (Vrem.Lor).— Nehrkorn (I. c., p. 202) describes 
eggs from Surinam, meas. 35 X 26 mm. Ihering (I. c. p. 286) describes 


22D, PENARD, Beebe’s ‘ Tropical Wild Life.’ [ fe 


eggs received from Iguape, meas. 35-26 X 27-28; he says that the eggs 
described by Euler (J. c., p. 102) undoubtedly belong to another species. 
F. P. and A. P. Penard (J. c., 1908, 1, p. 206) describe habits, site, nest, and 
eggs, meas. 35 X 27 mm. 

Creciscus viridis (P. L. 8. Mtiier)— Nehrkorn (I. c., p. 203) de- 
scribes eggs from “‘ Guyana,’’ meas. 32 X 23mm. F. P. and A. P. Penard 
(l. c., 1908, i, p. 210) describe habits, nest, and site fully; eggs two, rarely 
three, usually oval, pure white, almost without gloss, meas. 32 X 26 mm.; 
they say further that the eggs do not vary much, some having a few black- 
brown spots at the large end; in the nests are often found infertile and 
abnormal eggs. 

Caprimulgus [= Nyctipolus] nigrescens Casanis.— Nehrkorn 
(l. c., p. 156) lists eggs from Amazonia, meas. 23.5 X 18.5 mm. F. P. 
and A. P. Penard (l. c., 1910, li, p. 78) describe eggs, one or two, barely 
glossy, elliptical, pale yellowish-rose, distinctly spotted and blotched with 
chocolate-brown and purple-gray, meas. 25 X 18.5 mm. The eggs de- 
scribed by Schomburgk (l. c., p. 711) must have belonged to another 
species. 

Empidonomus varius varius (VipintotT).— Mr. Beebe (I. c., p. 225) 
states that ‘‘ although the eggs of this species have been collected no 
description of the nest has been given. ‘‘ We would call attention to 
description of a nest by Ihering (Rev. Mus. Paulista, 1914, ix, p. 443 and 
p. 482); the nest was collected by Garbe near Joazeiro, Bahia, in Novem- 
ber, 1913. 

Pipra aureola aureola (Linn&).—F. P. and A. P. Penard (l. c., 
1910, ii, p. 188) describe site and nest fully, giving measurements; the 
eggs are described as two, dull brownish gray, with numerous dark-brown 
spots, streaks, and dots, over the entire surface, but usually, on one of the 
eggs of a clutch, forming a wreath at the middle; meas. 21 X 15.5 mm. 

Cyanerpes cyaneus cyaneus (LinNE).—F. P. and A. P. Penard 
(l. c., 1910, 1, p. 475) say that the nests and eggs, 20 X 14 mm., do not 
differ much from those of C. ce@rulea, under which name they give full 
descriptions of nests and eggs. The eggs are described as two in number, 
oval, almost without gloss, black or purplish black-brown. The nest is 
described as made of little black roots, pear-shaped or shoe-shaped, with 
entrance low down at the side, measuring 16 em. high and 9 em. across, 
suspended like the nest of Todirostrum from twigs two to five feet from 
ground. J. A. Allen (Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., 1891, 1, p. 348) under 
the name Arbelorhina cyanea describes an egg collected by H. H. Smith, 
“ taken with parents, Oct. 13, 1882,’”’ in Matto Grosso, Brazil, but judging 
from the description, it must have belonged to some other species. 

Under the general heading of ‘‘ Seed eaters ’’ Mr. Beebe (J. c., p. 237), 
speaking of Oryzoborus angolensis brevirostris, Oryzoborus crassirostris, and 
Sporophila castaneiventris, says, ‘“‘ Familiarity breeds contempt. There 
could be no truer saying than where these little finches were concerned. 
In spite of diligent search through all the few reports and excerpts on the 


" 


Vol. iia PENARD, Beebe’s ‘ Tropical Wild Life.’ 223 


subject, no description of the home or eggs of these birds could be found, 
and yet, in April and May, their nests were everywhere.” H. Lloyd 
Price, in his paper on ‘' The Nests and Eggs of some common Guiana Birds ” 
(Timehri, 1891, p. 64), says in a general way, ‘‘ Various species of small 
finches or grass birds (Spermophila, etc.), build tiny nests in the long grass 
growing at the sides of the trenches; they are generally made of dry grass, 
and occasionally of dry sticks. The eggs, two in number, are of a greyish 
white spotted with either red, brown or grey, and of various sizes.’””, Much 
more definite information in regard to the breeding habits, nests, and eggs 
of the seed-eaters will be found in the works of F. P. and A. P. Penard, 
Ihering, Euler, and Nehrkorn. We would call attention to the following 
accounts pertaining to the species mentioned by Mr. Beebe: 

. Oryzoborus angolensis brevirostris BreErLErpscu.— Nehrkorn (I. c., 
p. 105) describes eggs from Brazil. Ihering (Rev. Mus. Paulista, 1900, 
iv, p. 213) describes nest and eggs. F. P. and A. P. Penard (J. c. 1910, ii, 
p. 388) ays that the nest is smalle: than that of O. crassirostris; the eggs 
are fully described. All these authors deal with this species under the 
name O. torridus. 

Sporophila castaneiventris Caspanis.— Nehrkorn (/. c., p. 105) 
describes eggs from Amazonia. F. P. and A. P. Penard (l. c., 1910, ui, 
p. 389) describe habits, nest, and eggs fully. They add the following 
interesting remarks (translated): ‘‘ The examples vary very, much in 
form and color as well as in measurements. In many the markings form 
a distinct wreath about the larger end, others being uniformly covered 
with gray-brown or brown. Those with wreathed ends are usually of a 
more oval shape than the evenly covered eggs, but both types are often 
found together in the same nest. It is thought [by the natives] that the 
more pointed egg hatches the male, and the browner egg the female. 
Eggs of a more spherical shape are less common with this species than 
with the next [S. minutal].”’ 

Oryzoborus crassirostris crassirostris (GmeLin).—F. P. and 
A. P. Penard (J. c. 1910, ii, p. 387) describe habits, nest, and eggs fully, 
with similar remarks in regard to variations in shape and coloration of 
eggs, both types sometimes being found in the same nest. 

Sporophila bouvronides (Lesson). F. P. and A. P. Penard (I. c., 
1910, ii, p. 392, sub nom. S. ocellata) compare nest to that of S. minuta, 
and eggs with those of S. castaneiventris, but say that the eggs of this species 
average a little longer and also a little grayer, with remarks in regard to 
the two types of eggs. 


In another chapter the author gives much interesting information 
regarding the habits of Tinamous. By an ingenious experiment he 
is led to the discovery that birds of the genus Tinamus sleep at 
night in trees, while those of the genus Crypturus always pass the 
night upon the ground. He accordingly correlates this difference 


d € . y “f ? A k 
224 Prnarp, Beebe’s ‘Tropical Wild Life. [ April 
in habits to the character of the back of the tarsus, which in Tina- 
mus is rough, and in Crypturus quite smooth. He goes on to say 
(ic58 ps 255): 


“These two distinctions have been recognized for many years — 
Tinamus for more than one hundred and thirty, and Crypturus for a 
hundred and six years, and during all this time ornithologists have 
accepted this character without thought or question.” 


I may say that the roosting habits of Tinamous are well known 
to hunters in Surinam, and according to Mr. Beebe himself they 
were not unknown to his Akawai hunter, Nupee, in whose state- 
ments, however, Mr. Beebe seemed disposed to place less confidence 
than in his own experiment, notwithstanding the fact that in either 
case conclusive evidence could only be sought in actual observation 
in the field. 

Nearly one hundred years ago Charles Waterton (Wanderings 
in South America, 1825, p. 286) called attention to these habits 
and suggested that the state of the tarsus might have some bearing 
upon them. These are his words: 


“There is something remarkable in the great Tinamou, which I suspect 
has hitherto escaped notice. It invariably roosts in trees; but the feet 
are so very small in proportion to the body of this bulky bird, that they 
can be of no use to it in grasping the branch; and, moreover, the hind toe 
is so short, that it does not touch the ground when the bird is walking. 
The back part of the leg, just below the knee, is quite flat, and somewhat 
concave. On it are strong pointed scales, which are very rough, and catch 
your finger as you move it along from the knee to the toe. Now, by means 
of these scales, and the particular flatness of that part of the leg, the bird 
is enabled to sleep in safety upon the branch of a tree.” 


In regard to the “small Tinamou,’ Waterton (Jbid., p. 287) says, 
“The foot of this bird is very small in proportion, but the back 
part of the leg bears no resemblance to that of the larger Tinamou; 
hence one might conclude that it sleeps on the ground.” 

Here then, we have at least one naturalist to whom “the casual, 
nominal affair between Hermann and Illiger versus Tinamus and 
Crypturus” was not all. 

But Waterton was not the only writer who has mentioned these 
things. Schomburgk, (I. c., p. 749) under the name T'rachypelmus 
subcristatus [= Tinamus major (Gmel.)], speaks of the relation of 


Vol. ao | Nicuots, Warbler Problems. 225 


the rough tarsus to the bird’s habit of roosting in trees, but under 
Crypturus variegatus (Wagler) ([bid., p. 748) says that he does not 
know whether that species also passes the night in trees. More 
recently F. P. and A. P. Penard, under the names Tinamus sub- 
cristatus (I. c. 1908, i, p. 318) and Crypturus variegatus (Ibid., p. 322) 
definitely state the bearing of the construction of the tarsi in these 
two genera upon the dissimilarity in roosting habits. 

Mr. Beebe’s discoveries in regard to the homes of Toucans, also, 
are extremely interesting, although the state of affairs regarding 
our knowledge of the life history of Toucans was really not so 
scanty as conveyed by the few words of Levaillant which the author 
quotes. It may be of interest to call attention here to a Toucan 
egg said to be of Ramphastos ariel Vigors, collected by Krone at 
Iguape, and recorded by Ihering (Rev. Mus. Paulista, 1900, iv, 
p. 262). It is described as oval, measuring 37 X 28 mm., white, 
with deep pits on the surface. Schomburgk, Burmeister, and 
others from time to time, have mentioned Toucan eggs, but beyond 
saying that the eggs were white, two in number, laid in holes in 
trees, they did not give much information. 

In concluding I wish to emphasize that I appreciate fully Mr. 
Beebe’s good work at the research station in British Guiana, and 
my remarks should not be construed as having been made with the 
purpose of depreciating the excellent publication, of which I have 
discussed, after all, only some very unimportant details. 


PROBLEMS SUGGESTED BY NESTS OF WARBLERS OF 
THE GENUS DENDROICA. 


BY JOHN TREADWELL NICHOLS. 


TuE genus Dendroica with center of abundance in eastern North 
America, containing numerous closely related birds, inhabiting 
im a general way the same region and boldly contrasted the one 
from the other in plumage, constitutes a striking natural phenome- 
non calling for explanation.! 


1 Nichols, J. T., American Naturalist. September, 1916; pp. 565-574. 


226 Nicuois, Warbler Problems. Res 


First what advantage to the race can there be in the evolution 
of so many species of similar habits? Probably though in the 
main not unlike, a careful comparative study of the species will 
show that sufficient difference of habit accompanies each to make 
it fit a slightly different niche in the environment. I mention a 
single phase, the construction of the nest. For my data on warbler 
nests I am indebted to Mr. P. B. Philipp of New York, who pos- 
sesses a very complete personally collected series of these. In his 
collection we have together verified interesting points that he has 
learned, and also worked! out other matters. 

The nests of different species of Dendroica, even when found in 
the same country, are remarkably distinct and can usually be 
recognized at a glance. In Northumberland County, New Bruns- 
wick, a locality with which Mr. Philipp is particularly familiar, 
Cape May, Yellow, Black-throated Blue, Myrtle, Magnolia, Bay- 
breasted, Blackpoll, Blackburnian, Black-throated Green, and 
Yellow Palm Warblers all breed, and he has found the nests of all 
but the Blackburnian placed in spruces at different heights. The 
nest of the Blackburnian has not been found here, but doubtless is 
placed high up in the spruces, as he has found it in such situations 
in Pennsylvania. The Yellow Palm Warbler usually nests on the 
ground in moss or dead ferns, but one nest was placed a few inches 
from the ground in a small spruce. Though a single nest of the: 
Yellow Warbler was found in a spruce, that species may nest more 
commonly in the willows. Cape May, Myrtle, and Blackburnian 
Warblers nest high, the other species low. 

The nest of the Black-throated Blue has a characteristically pale 
exterior, weed stems, pale bark, and rotten wood-chips being favor- 
ite materials for the bird to use in its construction. It is lined with 
black, hair-like, slightly crinkly substance, much used for that pur- 
pose by Warblers, the stem of a woodland ground-moss (the Cape 
May has been seen gathering this material). Occasionally horse- 
hair is substituted for it. In the Black-throated Green, spruce 
twigs and birch-bark whorls are characteristic of the exterior; 
hair and an occasional feather, of the interior. The Myrtle and 
Blackpoll both line the nest heavily with feathers; but the exterior 
is very different in the two,— in the Myrtle compact, of spruce 
twigs and fine dry grass, in the Blackpoll loose and bulky, rotten 


vol eX Nicnois, Warbler Problems. 227 


wood-chips, mosses, and a few twigs being used. The Magnolia 
lines its nest with horse-hair if it can get it, this material being 
present in Pennsylvania nests taken where it was obtainable, 
but will use other hair or “moss-stems.” One half or more of 
Mr. Phillipp’s nests are lined with horse-hair. The Magnolia’s 
nest is composed outside entirely or almost entirely of spruce 
twigs or grass and is a ragged looking nest. The Baybreast builds 
a ragged nest that looks like that of the Magnolia but is much 
larger; for lining it uses fine roots or “moss-stems.” The Cape 
May’s nest is thick-walled, rather flat, with fine sticks, a little grass 
and characteristic dried green moss on the outside, feathers and 
usually light colored hairs neatly molded down inside. A few 
“moss-stems”’ are used in construction, and outside, here and there 
are specks of very adhesive down. Mr. Philipp has seen a Cape 
May gathering fur from a dead rabbit, and also apparently picking 
hair out of a brush-pile. 

As regards other species, the Blackburnian builds a nest resem- 
bling the Magnolia’s but more compact and placed higher. The 
nest of the Yellow Warbler is smooth, very pale, of plant-down 
without, and fern-down within. The Yellow Palm Warbler’s 
nest, usually placed on the ground in moss at the foot of a small 
spruce, is bulky, fairly thick-walled, of grass lined with fine root- 
lets often combined with some porcupine and at times other hair, 
and with usually only a few feathers. 

There is some variation in the typical location of the nests by 
species, and in general the nest is very inconspicuous in its loca- 
tion. The dried moss on the Cape May’s nest may be especially 
adapted to conceal it (from below) in the spruce tops from its 
enemy, the Red-Squirrel. The Baybreasts’ ragged nest, well out 
on a low limb, is almost transparent. The pale Black-throated 
Blue nest in New Brunswick spruces is placed close to the trunk 
where it is well concealed; nesting in the rhododendrons in Penn- 
sylvania, the Black-throated Blue nest is well concealed by the 
glint of light on the rhododendron leaves. 

The nest of a bird is one of the most notable products of its 
instinct. Obviously much precision is necessary in selecting the 
appropriate materials and fitting them together, for the attain- 
ment of a successful product. That to obtain the right materials 


228 Nicuots, Warbler Problems. [ fen 


is a problem to the individual bird is evidenced by the adoption 
of horse-hair by the Magnolia Warbler to supplant the very similar 
“moss-stems”” which doubtless were its original material. The 
Chipping Sparrow must have substituted horse-hair for some pre- 
civilization material, and its habits are such that horse-hair is 
almost always obtainable by it and now almost the invariable 
nest-lining for the species. It is clear that to be successful the 
nest-building instinct of a given species must be pretty well fixed, 
that a bird must know what material it will use, also were all the 
Dendroicas dependent on,— let us say, feathers, horse-hair, or 
rabbit fur, there would be less of it for each, and specific differentia- 
tion is thus an advantage to the Dendroicine population as a whole. 

Secondly, what advantage to the species is there in their con- 
trasted plumages — in the writer’s opinion the colors of each act 
as a uniform, facilitating the recognition by a bird of its own kind 
just as they facilitate its recognition by a bird student.' 

A varicolored group of animals such as Dendroica, where many 
related species occupy the same locality,— other such groups come 
to the writer’s mind, notably among tropical reef fishes,— should 


be considered in formulating or accepting theories on species forma- 
tion. In many cases isolation and reinvasion are doubtless the 
succeeding steps in speciation, a process clearly indicated by work 
recently done by Taylor on the mammals of California.2 There 
is no inherent impossibility of the many Dendroicas of eastern 
North America having been similarly evolved, but with them it 
would seem to have been a difficult and complicated process instead 
of a simple and easy one, as with sedentary mammals in a broken 
country, and may not the forms have arisen for biological advantage 
without these steps? 


1 Nichols, J. T., Auk. Jan. 1912: pp. 44-48. 
2Taylor, Walter P. Univ. of Cal. pub. Zoology, Vol. 12, no. 15, March, 1916. 


ty] Seton, Popular Bird Names. 229 


ON THE POPULAR NAMES OF BIRDS. 
BY ERNEST THOMPSON SETON. 


EvERYONE who has studied the subject knows the enormous 
projectile power of the exact right name when one wishes to secure 
popular acceptation of any idea. The amount of effort and ability, 
devoted by men in commerce to securing the right name is evi- 
dence of the experienced view in dealing with the problem. Thou- 
sands of dollars in prizes are offered for a good name to be given to 
some new article, picture, idea, hotel or town. Because these 
experts know that the happy name makes all the difference between 
failure and nation-wide acceptation. 

We have precisely the same problem offered us in dealing with 
our birds. The scientific names must, of course, be left to the 
scientific experts, who, we must admit, take them very seriously; 
but the popular names have been treated in a most casual or con- 
temptuous way, in many cases ignored altogether. 

The attitude of the scientists recalls that of the pedantic classical 
scholars of the early Queen Anne period. They had imbibed such 
a contempt for the English language of the day that they set about 
seriously to rewrite the King James Bible “in dignified English.” 
The first phrase of the Prodigal Son, for example, in the authorized 
version is as follows: “A certain man had two sons and the younger 
of them said to his father,” ete. Such simple language, they 
said, “savored of the nursery and stank of the gutter,” so they 
rewrote it, in their “dignified English”’ as follows:— “In remote 
antiquity, antedating the meticulous epoch of precise chronology, 
there was an opulent and distinguished gentleman who resided 
in the agricultural district of the Orient, and was the progenitor of 
two adult descendants of the masculine gender. Having attained 
to majority and, presumably, the years of discretion, the junior 
scion addressed his immediate ancestral paternal relative and 
thus expressed the result of a prolonged, solitary and introspective 
cogitation.” 

This attitude of the Johnsonian school exactly parallels that of 
our book ornithologists toward bird names evolved by the common 


230 Seton, Popular Bird Names. Fes 


people. And when I remind you that the so-called classical 
product is remorselessly scrapped now, and, further, that Skeat, 
the greatest modern authority on English, has warned us that, 
rules or no rules, grammar or no grammar, classics or no classics, 
the street language of London today will inevitably become the 
university language of England tomorrow; and the street language 
of modern New York, the university language of America, just 
as surely as the street language of Elizabeth’s time devoured alike 
the Norman French, and the Anglo-Saxon as well as the bastard 
classic of the pedants, and became at last the language of Oxford 
and Cambridge. 

Now to apply this to our bird names. 

If it is the aim of ornithology to spread a nation-wide knowledge 
of birds, then the popular names are at least as important as the 
Latin names. 

In 1885, I wrote to ‘The Auk’ on the same subject, (Vol. 2, p. 
316) and have no reason to change the views therein expressed. 

The scientist, as such, has no more to do with the popular names 
of the birds than he has with the conjugation of the verb “to be,” 
for these are a growing part of the living language. And yet, the 
scientists have arrogated the sole right to dictate the popular names, 
even while they frankly and openly despise them; sometimes 
ignoring them altogether; sometimes condescendingly translating 
the scientific name into alleged English, saying that it was good 
enough. How far all this is wrong and harmful to bird study, I 
hope you will allow me to point out. 

The popular name of a bird must always be produced by the 
genius of the language, speaking usually through some personal 
genius who makes a happy hit. The name must be simple, easily 
said, descriptive, short, and is much stronger if in some way it 
ties up the bird’s characteristics with familiar ideas. 

For example, “Kingbird” is a success; is short, is of familiar 
elements, and describes the bird’s character. Every farm boy in 
its region knows the Kingbird, and by that name, except in a 
few localities where the rival name ‘ Bee-martin’ still fogs the issue. 

If we pretend that the name of that species is “Tyrant Fly- 
catcher,” as our scientists once insisted, our popular knowledge 
of the bird would disappear and with that all popular interest in it. 


| Seton, Popular B'rd Names. 231 


Another example, “Bronzed Grackle.’’ For a hundred years, 
the scientists have been trying to force the people into believing 
that Bronzed Grackle was the English name of the bird, and 
have met with the unanswerable response of dumb silence; readers 
of the scientific bird books use the name, but the public do not. 
Everywhere to the farm boys the “Bronzed Grackle”’ is simply a 
“Big Blackbird.” This is descriptive but far from satisfactory. 
Scores of times I have handed out this name “ Bronzed Grackle”’ 
to inquiring boys, to find that it never reached their consciousness 
as a name; it had no appeal to ear or memory; it was hard to say; 
it was not backed by the genius of the language. I doubt if the 
word “Bronzed” ever could be; its really acceptable English 
representative is “Copper”; but the bird does n’t look coppery to 
ordinary view; and the word “Grackle”’ is impossible, hard to 
say, meaningless, not striking any familiar chord in the memory. 

“Blackbird” is the popular name. But a local genius in the 
northwest, a boy with instincts and eyes to see, described it and 
named it as a “Fantail Blackbird.” Here was a real English 
name, descriptive, acceptable; and instantly it was a success. 
Everyone who heard it once remembered the name and remembered 
the bird. 

Perhaps the best illustration of all is the name of the common 
American Robin. The scientists scolded the colonists fiercely for 
calling it a “Robin.” It was not a “Robin,” they maintained, 
it was a Thrush of the Merula section of the family; and they 
refused to use, print or sanction any English name for the bird 
except ‘Migratory Thrush.” After a century of irascible attack, 
which was received in silent, ponderous apathy, the scientists were 
beaten. The cause of English triumphed and today actually 
even the scientific lists give the bird as the “American Robin,”’ by 
which name it is known to every child in America, and loved because 
it is known. 

For a hundred years, scientists had been trying to make us 
believe that Rice Troupial, Yellow-bellied Woodpecker, Carolina 
Nightjar, Virginia Goatsucker, Black-throated Bunting, Vociferous 
Plover, Golden-winged Woodpecker, Virginia Quail, Polyglot 
Thrush, Ferrugineous Thrush and Black-capped Titmouse, were 
the English names of certain American birds; but the genius of 


232 Seton, Popular Bird Names. a 


the language was unconquerable, and at last it is admitted by the 
defeated scientists that the trivial names (as they called them) 
of these birds are really Bobolink, Sapsucker, Whippoorwill, 
Nighthawk, Dickcissel, Killdeer, Flicker, Bobwhite, Mockingbird, 
Thrasher and Chickadee; and with that admission public interest 
in these particular birds takes on a great and enduring growth. 

A similar struggle is now going on between the Black-billed 
Cuckoo vs. Rain Crow, Snowflake vs. Snow Bird, Passenger Pigeon 
vs. Wild Pigeon, Goldfinch vs. Wild Canary, Junco vs. Slaty 
Snowbird or Tip, Cardinal vs. Redbird, Sand Martin vs. Bank 
Swallow, Spotted Sandpiper vs. Tip-up or Peetweet, Barred Owl 
vs. Hoot Owl, Virginia Horned Owl vs. Cat Owl, Acadian Owl vs. 
Saw-whet, Carolina Rail vs. Sora, Phalarope vs. Sea Goose, Vulture 
vs. Turkey-Buzzard, Pectoral Sandpiper vs. Jack Snipe, Gallinule 
vs. Mud Hen, Osprey vs. Fish Hawk, Peregrine Faleon vs. Duck 
Hawk, American Kestrel vs. Sparrowhawk. 

A few names such as Bluebird, Crossbill, Chat, Wagtail, Sand- 
piper, ete., have long been such a success that one knows instine- 
tively that they did not originate with the scientists. 

Such clumsy names as White-throated Sparrow, Black-and- 
White Warbler, Red-shouldered Hawk, are, of course, not names 
at all, but cumbrous descriptions and doomed to failure, while 
absurd pedantries like Pileolated Warbler, Protonotary Warbler, 
Plumbeous Gnatcatcher, are worthy of the afore-mentioned 
pedants of the Jacobean classical epoch. 

Names like Blackburnian Warbler, Nashville Warbler, Clay- 
colored Sparrow, Townsend’s Solitaire, are utterly impossible. 
They are clumsy, meaningless, un-English and detrimental. I 
was showing the first of these birds to a group of lively children and 
said it was called Blackburnian Warbler. A bright boy, speaking 
wiser than he knew, said, “If it was ‘Flaming Warbler’ I’d remem- 
ber it.’ “Nashville Warbler” is, of course, utterly misleading. 
We are told that the “ Nashville” is a mere fortuitous word added 
for distinction. Then I say drop it as soon as possible, since it 
is no more a Nashville Warbler than it is a Virginia or Minnesota 
Warbler; while the word “Warbler” itself is open to grave sus- 
picion. I wonder the clumsiness of “Clay-colored Sparrow” 
has not put it out long ago. I suppose the reason is it never was in. 


ye. A a Snron, Popular Bird Names. 233 


Take the name “ Western Grebe.” Of course, it is n’t a Western 
Grebe any more than several others; and, viewed from some stand- 
points, it is an Eastern Grebe, a Southern Grebe, a Northern 
Grebe, a Northeastern Grebe, a South-southwestern Grebe, or any 
other compass point you like to give it. But what popular ear, 
tongue, or imagination is ready to seize on such a name? 

It has no point, power or appeal. How much better, for the 
present, the descriptive “Swan-Grebe,” that does, in a small 
measure, do justice to the superb creature in question. 

I suppose, if we are to be candid, the word “Grebe”’ has never 
taken root in America. I do not know why. It is, indeed, of 
French origin; but it has been thoroughly Englished in form. 
It is short, angular and individual. But the fact is that in the 
popular mind all “Grebes”’ are “ Hell-divers,” and we may as well 
admit it; although I do not see the word at all in the scientific list 
of popular names. 

I can imagine some hearer objecting here that his ten-year-old 
boy or girl has all the names at his tongue’s end — far better than 
grown-ups. Yes; I know you can teach a child to talk Latin if you 
do it at the language learning age and make it interesting; but you 
cannot thereby make it the language of the nation. 

To sum up —I take it that the business of ornithology is, first, 
to accumulate correct information about birds and then to diffuse 
it among the people. 

If the ornithologists had set out definitely to build an eternal 
barrier to popular interest in birds, they could not have done it 
better than by establishing such impossible names as are cited 
above. They never were, and never could be, English names. 


The puzzle has been set forth; now what is the answer? I admit 
that scientists, describing a new bird, may suggest a name in 
pseudo-English. That seems necessary. But let them receive 
fair warning, that it is a temporary makeshift; tolerated, but barely 
respectable. 

How are we to discover the acceptable name? Only by looking 
out for it, as a precious thing to be found, tested when found and 
accepted when proven. I shall never forget the little thrill that I 
got when I learned that, in some good and old writings, a Wood- 


234 Seton, Popular Bird Names. hee: 


pecker was called a “ Wood-wale.”’ How gloriously that name 
would fit the so-called Pileated Woodpecker (whatever ‘pileated’ 
means; I don’t know). How rhythmic — how simple! How 
beautifully descriptive. Does n’t it make you hear that long, 
eerie wail in the woods? 

Doctor Elliott Coues, with his usual far-sight, insight and literary 
appreciation, sensed this question, I think; and, in the last edition 
of the Key, made a move toward the solution by offering every 
name he could find or invent for each of our birds. Take Wood- 
thrush for instance; he calls it Woodthrush, Wood Robin, Bell 
bird and Geraldine. Why “Geraldine”? I do not know, unless 
it is an imitation of its nore, which is, of course, good. But all 
of these names seem to me of good origin and sound structure. At 
a guess, I would venture to say that, given equal publicity, Bell 
bird”? would win over all the others, even granting the already 
considerable success of the word ‘Woodthrush’; because it is so 
descriptive, so alliterative, so easy to say, so easy to remember and 
so rhythmic; in other words, it is good English. 

At once, I hear the objection that that name belongs by priority 
to a wholly different bird in South America; and I reply that the 
genius of language does not know of the existence of South America 
or concern itself with priority, or with anything but getting the idea 
into the mind and the memory. As to priority, if that spectre 
be allowed to walk, it will surely eliminate every popular name on 
every list that ever was given to the public. 

I would encourage all who meet them, to collect and send in the 
names that appear locally under pressure of the growing popular 
interest. 

I would ask bird men of literary instinct to gather, make up, 
or invent good names to be submitted to the great test. 

Last, for suggestions, I would ransack the pages of those outdoor 
poets and writers who have the two-fold gift — love of the birds 
and language-sense. 

Thus I would gather the continual product of the popular 
attempts, until some day, for each bird, is discovered a happy 
solution that can stand the great and final tests:— Does it describe 
the bird? Is it short and pat? Is it a monosyllable? Or, if more 
than one syllable, is the accent on the first? Is it different from 


eS | Loomis, The Reality of Species. 235 


other names? Is it easily said? Does it tie up the bird with 
existing ideas? Can it be used in writing verse? Does it win the 
popular attention and put both the bird and name in the memories — 
of the children and of the farmers? If it does all these, it will have 
back of it all the power of the genius of English to fix it, make it 
nation-wide and carry with it clear knowledge of the bird. 

This, it seems to me, is one of the greatest needs for the spread 
of bird knowledge in America today. 


THE REALITY OF BIRD SPECIES. 
BY LEVERETT MILLS LOOMIS. 


In 1858, in volume IX of the ‘Reports of Explorations and 
Surveys ... from the Mississippi River to the Pacific Ocean,’ 
Ammodromus samuelis Baird and Melospiza fallax Baird appear as 
full-fledged species. In 1874, in ‘A History of North American 
Birds,’ Land Birds, volume II, these so-called species are reduced 
in rank, being designated respectively Melospiza melodia, var. 
samuelis, Baird and Melospiza melodia, var. fallax, Baird. In 
1886, in the first edition of the A. O. U. ‘Check-List,’ these names 
are altered, in accordance with earlier lists by Mr. Ridgway and 
Dr. Coues, to Melospiza fasciata samuelis (Baird) and Melospiza 
fasciata fallax (Baird), pure trinomials and the term subspecies 
having come into vogue. In 1910, in the third edition of the 
A. O. U. ‘Check-List,’ the two names are amended to Melospiza 
melodia samuelis (Baird) and Melospiza melodia fallax (Baird). 

Owing to his lack of knowledge of geographic variation, Professor 
Baird gave to each of these geographic variations of the Song 
Sparrow an entity which they did not possess, and this entity, 
having gained a foothold in the literature, is perpetuated to-day in 
the subspecies (‘incipient species’). As no one can foresee the 
future of these variations of the Song Sparrow, it is not known 
whether they are the beginnings of species or not. Nevertheless, 
it may be urged that bird history repeats itself, and that the 


236 Loomis, The Real:ty of Species. [ Fis 


record of past events warrants the conclusion that bird species 
are now in process of evolution through geographic variation. 
Theorize as we may, the fact remains that we do not know what 
part geographic variation or other agencies played, or did not play, 
in the origin of existing bird species, the modus operandi of the 
evolution being unknown. But we do know that geographic 
variation is one of the common variations occurring within the 
bounds of a bird species of to-day, and that it is not the only 
variation in which geography is a factor. 

Independent of individualism, age, sex, season, or climatic con- 
ditions, there exists a type of variation known as dichromatism, 
which perhaps originated in mutations. It is well exemplified in 
the Jaegers, Albatrosses and Petrels, Herons, Hawks, and Owls. 
In some species there is a difference in the geographic range of the 
phases, but it does not correlate with environment as in geographic 
variation. Instances to the point are found in the Wedge-tailed 
Shearwater, Red-tailed Hawk, and Screech Owl. 

More than thirty years ago, when our knowledge of variation 
was far less than it is now, Dr. Stejneger had the discernment to 
interpret Colaptes auratus (Linneus), Colaptes cafer (Gmelin), 
and Colaptes hybridus Baird to be dichromatic or trichromatic 
phases of one species, and not two species that hybridize on a 
gigantic scale! None of the characteristics of dichromatism are 
wanting in these extremes and intermediates. They are similar 
in general character to the extremes and intermediates of well- 
known dichromatic species, of the Wedge-tailed Shearwater, 
Neglected Petrel, and Rough-legged Hawk for example. They 
are not individual and are not dependent upon age, sex, season, Or 
environmental conditions. Moreover, intermediates crop out 
sporadically in the Eastern States, where the auratus phase is 
dominant. It is well to bear in mind that these variations of the 
Flicker are not greater than certain other normal variations; as 
the age variation of the Western Gull, the sexual variation of 
Williamson’s Sapsucker, the seasonal variation of the Marbled 
Murrelet, and the dichromatic variation of the Parasitic Jaeger. 

The question naturally arises, whether dichromatism has often 


1 Riverside Nat. Hist., Vol. IV, pp. 8, 9. 


nel Loomis, The Reality of Species. 236 


been misinterpreted and made the basis of apocryphal species and 
their supposed hybridization on a grand scale. In the alleged 
Junco species, for instance, possibly dichromatism or polychroma- 
tism, originating in mutations, obtains along with geographic 
variation. 

Vermivora leucobronchialis (Brewster) and Vermivora lawrencer 
(Herrick) are not overlooked in this discussion. The evidence 
thus far presented tends to prove that they are hybrids between 
two species rather than intermediates of one dichromatic species.' 
Be this as it may, hybridization between unquestionable species 
of birds is an abnormal and relatively rare occurrence. 

To affirm that bird species are concepts, is to ignore the facts 
in the case. Ammodromus samuelis Baird and Melospiza fallax 
Baird are concepts, but Melospiza melodia with all its geographic 
variations is a reality. It is absolutely separated from Melospiza 
lincolni and Melospiza georgiana and all other existing bird species. 
Colaptes auratus is likewise a reality. In spite of its great dichro- 
matic variation, it does not intergrade with any other woodpecker. 
It is confidently stated that the great majority of the A. O. U. 
‘Check-List’ species are also realities, and the remainder time- 
honored concepts based on inconstant variations, like Fulmarus 
rodgerst Cassin, which is merely an extreme white phase of Ful- 
marus glacialis (Linnzus).? 

In a word, absence of intergradation among birds results in a 
definite entity, the existing bird species. 


1 Cf. Faxon, Mem. Mus. Comp. Zool., Vol. XL, 1911, pp. 57-78. 
2 Cf. Proc. Calif. Acad. Sci., 4th Ser., Vol. II, Pt. IT, 1918, p. 88. 


238 Bent, Variation in Black-throated Loons. Res 


GEOGRAPHICAL VARIATION IN THE BLACK-— 
THROATED LOONS. 


BY A. C. BENT. 


Dr. JoNaTHAN DwiGuHt’s interesting paper in ‘The Auk’ for 
April, 1918, describing a new species of Loon from northeastern 
Siberia, has opened up a subject to which I have given considerable 
study without having been able to come to any satisfactory conclu- 
sion. After examining directly or indirectly some seventy speci- 
mens of Black-throated Loons, including the entire series in several 
of the largest collections in this country, I came to the conclusion 
that the necessary material was still lacking to settle satisfactorily 
the true status of this group. 

I have long recognized the existence of a large, Green-throated 
Loon in the Bering Sea region; but I have postponed publishing 
anything on it until I could obtain enough breeding birds from 
somewhere in that region, to establish a more or less definite breed- 
ing range in which a more or less constant form is to be found. 
Now that Dr. Dwight has seen fit to open up the subject, I feel 
called upon to publish what incomplete data I have on the whole 
group. 

It seems to me that there are only two alternative theories into 
which the known facts may be made to fit. The first and most 
likely theory is that there is but one circumpolar species, divided 
into three, or possibly four, subspecies, as hereinafter designated. 
To support this theory we need more material from Siberia and 
eastern Europe to show complete intergradation between the two 
intermediate subspecies, arctica and suschkini, though what material 
we have seems to indicate that such intergradation exists. An 
argument against this theory is the fact that the two extreme sub- 
species, viridigularis and pacifica, apparently breed side by side 
in northeastern Siberia and northwestern Alaska. 

The second theory is that there are two species, arctica in Europe, 
with viridigularis as a Siberian subspecies occupying a subarctic 
area, and pacifica in North America, with suschkini as a Siberian 
subspecies occupying the Arctic coast. This theory would explain 


NNT Bent, Variation in Black-throated Loons. 239 
the breeding of the two extreme forms in the same or in contiguous 
areas; but it would be upset by the discovery of more complete 
intergradation, unless such intergrades could be regarded as hybrids. 
A final choice between these two theories cannot be made until 
more material is available showing the distribution and relation- 
ships of the forms to be found in Siberia, a vast and little known 
region. 

I will now attempt to state, roughly and in general terms, the 
main known facts in this complicated case and let the reader judge 
for himself how they fit in with the above theories. There are 
apparently three or four fairly well marked subspecies of Black- 
throated Loons, as follows:— 

1. Gavia arctica pacifica (Lawrence), the smallest of all, in 
which the hind neck or nape is much lighter gray than the crown 
or forehead, nearly white in some cases, the black throat patch 
terminates below in a straight line and the metallic reflections of 
this patch almost always appear purplish in any light. This 
form occupies a breeding area which includes the whole of north- 
ern North America (which need not be more definitely outlined 
here), the Arctic Islands west of Greenland and the Arctic coast 
of Siberia for our unknown distance westward. 

2. Gawa arctica suschkint (Sarudny), intermediate in size 
between arctica and pacifica, but nearer the latter, in which the 
colors are nearly as in pacifica, but with a slight tendency towards 
arctica. This form probably has a breeding range somewhere on 
the northern coast of Asia, but is known only from specimens taken 
in winter or on migrations in the Ural and Turkestan regions. 

3. Gavia arctica arctica (Linneus), intermediate in size, but 
nearer wridigularis than pacifica, in which the crown and nape 
are uniform dark gray, the black throat patch terminates below in 
a point and the reflections of this patch appear either purplish 
when held away from the light and greenish when held towards 
it, or wholly purplish in any light, with considerable individual 
variation. This form inhabits northern Europe, and northern Asia 
for an unknown distance eastward and southward in Siberia. 

4. Gavia arctica viridigularis (Dwight), the largest of all, but 
intergrading perfectly with arctica, in which the crown and nape 
are colored as in arctica, the black throat patch terminates below 


240 Bent, Variation in Black-throated Loons. Lack 


in a point and the reflections of the throat are usually more green- 
ish than in the others. I have yet to see a specimen in which more 
or less purple reflections could not be found. Even Dr. Dwight’s 
type shows “slight purplish tints.” This form, if it is a good sub- 
species, has no well defined habitat; but what specimens I have 
seen would seem to indicate a breeding range on both sides of 
Bering Sea. which may extend for a considerable distance westward 
into the interior of Siberia. _ 

The above arrangement may appear satisfactory to the casual 
observer, but the trouble with it is that all of the above characters, 
particularly those on which Dr. Dwight bases his new species, are 
decidedly variable and inconstant. Size is the most satisfactory 
character but even this shows intergradation or overlapping and 
greater individual variation in each group than the differences in 
averages between the groups. The measurements, in inches, of the 
four forms, which I have taken or had sent to me, are as follows:— 


Gavia arctica pacifica (Lawrence). 


12 males from North America, east of the Mackenzie River, 
average, bill 2.14 wing 11.65 
largest, “ 2.82 “ 12.42 
smallest, “ 1.93 “ 10.80 

13 males from North America, west of the Mackenzie River, 
average, bill 2.06 wing 11.66 
largest, “ 2.20 “ 12.50 
smallest, “ 1.87 “ 10.50 


Gavia arctica suschkini (Sarudny) 


5 males from Turkestan, 
average, bill 2.35 wing 12.40 
largest, “ 2.60 “ 13.35 
smallest, * 2.20 “ 11.80 


Gavia arctica arctica (Linnzus) 


6 males from Europe, 
average, bill 2.44 wing 12.24 
largest, “ 2.62 “ 12.75 
smallest, “ 230 “ 12. 


Vol. Sed Bent, Variation in the Black-throated Loons. YA 


Gavia arctica viridigularis (Dwight) 
4 males from Bering Sea region, 
average, bill 2.63 wing 12.69 
fireest, 4. 2.8% “ 18. 
smallest, . © 2.50: “ 12. 


The other characters are equally confusing. The nape is lightest 
and almost constantly so in North American pacifica; it is darkest 
in viridigularis and more or less intermediate in many specimens 
of the other two forms. 

The black throat patch terminates below in a straight line almost 
invariably in North American pacifica; I have seen but one excep- 
tion to this rule; but in Siberian pacifica this character is less 
constant. In wiridigularis this patch terminates below in a decided 
point, in all specimens that I have seen. In European arctica 
about half of the specimens I have seen have the patch decidedly 
pointed below and the others have it nearly straight or only slightly 
pointed. 

The colored reflections of the black throat-patch are the most 
variable and inconstant of all the characters. In viridigularis 
three of the specimens examined show mainly greenish colors but 
even these show some signs of purple; and in one, a bird in my own 
collection, the colors are about equally divided. In European 
arctica about half of the specimens show mainly purplish reflections, 
while fully half show both purplish and greenish. In North Ameri- 
ean pacifica the purplish reflections predominate, but five speci- 
mens out of twenty-two show more or less greenish in certain lights. 
Mr. Waldron DeWitt Miller, in sending me descriptions of Pacific 
Loons in the American Museum, used the following terms in desig- 
nating the colors of the throats; greenish-blue, bluish-green, dark 
greenish-blue, violaceous and dark violet. It can be easily seen 
from the above that the colors are very variable. 

Dr. Dwight says, in his diagnosis of wiridigularis:— “The green 
coloration of the throat is the essential character that sets this 
species apart from arctica and its races, which all have purple 
throats.” In the light of the facts stated above this “essential 
character” disappears and his new species must be reduced to the 


242 Dwicut, Larus hyperboreus. Lack 


rank of a subspecies at least. Even a subspecies must prove to be 
fairly constant in a more or less definite range. The range of 
viridigularis is very imperfectly known; the four specimens, 
referable to this form, that I have seen were taken at Nijni Kolymsk, 
Siberia, St. George Island, Bering Sea, Nome and Saint Michael, 
Alaska; Dr. Dwight’s specimens all came from northeastern Siberia. 
The Nijni Kolymsk bird, referred to above, is somewhat inter- 
mediate between viridigularis and arctica; if it had been taken in 
Europe it would probably be referred to the latter. I also have a 
perfectly typical pacifica from the Kolyma River, Siberia. 

I have seen birds from Victoria, B. C., from Finland and from 
Norway which closely approach this new form, viridigularis, in 
size and color characters. If we had a larger series of arctica from 
Europe and Asia available for comparison, we could perhaps match 
these birds exactly and we could certainly show, if I have not 
already demonstrated it, that viridigularis is merely a subspecies 
of arctica. To use Dr. Dwight’s own terms, the green throat seems 
to be a quantitative rather than a qualitative character. 


REASONS FOR DISCARDING A PROPOSED RACE OF 
THE GLAUCOUS GULL (LARUS HYPERBOREUS). 


BY JONATHAN DWIGHT, M. D. 


In discussing the moults and plumages of the Glaucous Gull, 
a dozen years ago I took occasion to bury “Larus barrovianus” 
among the synonyms of Larus hyperboreus (then known as glaucus) 
because the alleged characters seemed to me to afford insufficient 
grounds for recognizing even a subspecies (Auk, XXIII, 1906, 
p. 29). Later, in the 1910 edition of the A. O. U. ‘Check-List,’ 
the Committee on Nomenclature and Classification adopted my 
view of the case and discarded “barrovianus”; but recently Dr. 
H. C. Oberholser has seen fit to dig it up and it is revived, somewhat 
impressively, as a subspecies of hyperboreus (Auk, XXXV, 1918, 
p. 472). 


oat] Dwicut, Larus hyperboreus. 243 

If it were not for certain aspects of the matter I would merely 
reaffirm my convictions of 1906; for it is a question whether Dr. 
Oberholser has added anything new to the original claims made by 
the describer, Mr. R. Ridgway (Auk, III, 1886, p. 330). This 
does not seem to be the ease, for his diagnosis is virtually a restate- 
ment of Mr. Ridgway’s, except that a supposed character of the 
bill is discarded on evidence I submitted in 1906. My measure- 
ments had shown that this character, namely, “depth through the 
angle never less and usually decidedly greater than through the 
base,”’ was not diagnostic, but this was not my only “evident 
reason”’ then for rejecting “barrovianus” as Dr. Oberholser now 
wrongly assumes. What I said was that this form “is scarcely 3% 
smaller [than glauwcus| in size and 4% smaller in bill” and further- 
more, I said; “It is true that the largest specimens of barrovianus 
never quite reach the dimensions of the largest glawcus, but over- 
lapping of size is so considerable even when careful comparison 
of sexes is made that without first reading the labels one cannot, 
except in a very few cases, tell whether a bird is from Greenland 
or Alaska. The variation in the size and shape of the bill in gulls 
is very great and a few millimeters difference in wings that are as 
long as one’s arm is hardly ground on which to rest a subspecies, 
much less a full species.” 

These conclusions may be contrasted with Dr. Oberholser’s 
recent diagnosis which reads, “Similar to Larus hyperboreus 
hyperboreus, but smaller, the bill particularly so and relatively as 
well as actually more slender; mantle decidedly darker; and the 
line of demarcation between the white tips to the primaries and the 
pale grayish basal portions usually more evident.’ I would here 
call attention to the fact that the “line of demarcation” is not a 
distinet character but a corollary of the preceding, for the color of 
the mantle in the Glaucous Gull regularly runs over, so to speak, 
into the wings, and a darker mantle would mean darker bases of 
the primaries and therefore greater contrast as a matter of course. 
Consequently, in the final analysis there are two characters and 
only two on which “barrovianus”’ rests,— (1) darker mantle and 
(2) smaller size, especially of the bill. I will invite attention to a 
new estimate of the value of these characters. 

1. As for the color of the mantle, which Mr. Ridgway calls 


244 Dwieut, Larus hyperboreus. Fees 


WING 
(2 ee 
sackman a 
2 2 rou fot 
TAIL. 


Ha [ee a ee 
mm 


4 


we = hyp erboreus . 


/ = barrovianus” 


2 = Oberholser’s measurements. 


Fig. 1. Diagrams showing relative measurements in millimeters of 31 adult 
specimens of Larus hyperboreus and its alleged race. Top line shows actual length 
in largest birds, middle line shows average, and bottom line shows smallest of the 
series, 


ee ny Dwicut, Larus hyperboreus. 245 


“somewhat” and Dr. Oberholser “decidedly” darker, I can only 
say that my series fails to support either of these statements. I 
find that if comparison of like stages of plumage be made, birds 
from Greenland are quite as dark as Alaska specimens and con- 
versely Alaska birds are as pale as those from Greenland. It 
is, perhaps, a matter of more than passing interest that the major- 
ity of adult Greenland birds in the collections I have seen are in 
worn faded plumage while most of the Alaska material is in fresh 
dark plumage. One might easily get the impression that the 
darker birds represent a race unless due allowance is made. 

It may not be generally known that the adult Glaucous Gull 
moults twice in the year, a complete postnuptial moult beginning 
toward the last of July and extending over nearly two months and 
a prenuptial in March and April which involves most of the body 
feathers but not the wings nor the tail. Between moults the 
mantle fades and looks even paler than it is in color because of 
the worn and whitened feather edges. There is some individual 
variation in the depth of color in freshly moulted specimens, 
whether from Greenland or Alaska, but both may be equally dark 
and they may become equally pale after the lapse of a few months. 
I have examined birds taken nearly every month in the year and 
T am at a loss to understand how Dr. Oberholser finds a “ decidedly 
darker” race unless he has unwittingly compared birds of unlike 
stages of plumage. 

2. As for size, this is a question of relative dimensions that 
permits some latitude of opinion, so that a new presentation of 
the facts seems desirable. 

My early table of measurements (Auk, XXIII, 1906, p. 28) 
based on 31 adults (14 of them males and 17 females) is accepted 
by Dr. Oberholser “except for dimensions of the bill which have 
been remeasured for the present use.” I have reproduced all of 
these measurements by the graphic method (Fig. 1) and anyone 
may see, almost at a glance, what the variations of size in the 
Glaucous Gull actually are. The diagrams are drawn to scale, 
the upper horizontal line representing the actual size of the largest 
specimens, males and females, the middle line the mean or average 
size and the lower line the smallest specimens. The oblique solid 


-lines represent hyperboreus, the broken lines “barrovianus’” and 


246 Dwicut, Larus hyperboreus. Aga 


the dotted lines Dr. Oberholser’s remeasurements of the bill. 
His “depth of bill” for “barrovianus”’ is the same as mine and 
therefore cannot be separately plotted. He does not tell us from 
what series he made the remeasurements that do not tally with 
mine, but the figures suggest that it may have been a small one 
and with an unusual proportion of very large and very small birds, 
possibly wrongly sexed in some cases. 

The original series that I measured was composed of breeding 
birds from Greenland and from Alaska which formed a small part 
of the 200 specimens I had then gathered togethe: for comparison. 
Although they are now widely scattered, some of them (as well as 
new specimens) are still either in my collection or in that of the 
American Museum of Natural History. A reéxamination and 
remeasurement of them (68 in all, 39 being adults) confirms to a 
surprising degree my earlier measurements and_ conclusions. 
Individual variation is greater than the supposed subspecifie values 
and the overlapping of size is marked. Birds as large as these 
Gulls, it must be remembered, may not be measured with unfailing 
accuracy, especially when different persons attempt it, for speci- 
mens are often greatly worn, the wings or tail are sometimes not 
quite grown and often the feathers are bent and broken. It is 
not unusual to find a variation of five to ten or more millimeters 
between the right and left wing of the same bird, due to the make-up 
of the skin, while tarsi and toes of opposite legs may be bent very 
much out of shape in drying. Where such variation exists, one 
may to advantage measure each wing or foot separately and strike 
an average as I have done in many cases. 

Turning finally to the bill, I would call attention to the sketch 
(Fig. 2) which shows the average adult bill of the male of hyper- 
boreus contrasted with that of “barrovianus.”” When one realizes 
that the variation in the bills of all female gulls is much greater 
than that of the males and that young birds only very slowly 
acquire adult dimensions, it becomes evident that “barrovianus” 
is not “very readily recognizable by its usually smaller size and 
particularly smaller bill.’ One may guess cleverly that large 
birds belong to one race and small ones to another, but without 
reference to the labels the guesses may be astray by a continent’s 
width. 


Vol. bial Dwicut, Larus hyperboreus. 247 


Fig. 2. Bill of average Larus hyperboreus, male, life size, drawn to scale. The 
broken line shows the bill of the alleged race. 


So far as I can see the case of barrovianus stands where it did in 
1906 and it is a pity that there should have been any need of reopen- 
ing it. Fortunately the merits of this and similar cases do not 
rest upon individual bias, but they are determined by the A. O. U. 
Committee which, as far as North American birds are concerned, 
acts somewhat as a supreme court rendering verdicts according to 
evidence presented. Let us hope they will give us “safe and sane” 
subspecies rather than the shadowy indefinite groups of averages 
that too often are named as geographical races. It should be 
remembered that while a name is a handle to a fact, too many 
handles would make a door or a basket perfectly useless. Orni- 
thology will become a wilderness of handles if every difference is 
named at sight,—a wilderness of subspecies founded more on 
hasty opinions than on digested facts. A step farther and. we 
shall have the psychological subspecies in which the expectant 
mental attitude of the subspecialist (if I may be pardoned the 
word) will play the most important réle. In our gropings after 
the truth it is wasteful of too much time to spend so much of it 
stumbling over names of groups so poorly defined that they convey 
only a vague meaning to a few specialists and none at all to every- 


248 Taverner, Birds of Red Deer River, Alta. Fees 


body else. Decking the subspecies in all the glittering panoply of 
diagnosis, dimension, and distribution makes of it an impressive 
spectacle, but this does not necessarily make of it a good subspecies. 


THE BIRDS OF THE RED DEER RIVER, ALBERTA. 


BY P. A. TAVERNER.! 


(Continued from p. 21.) 


SINCE the first part of this paper went to press, I am in receipt 
of a series of notes from F. L. Farley, now of Camrose but formerly 
of Red Deer. His observations extend from 1892 to 1906 at the 
former locality and from then to date at the latter. They consist 
chiefly of lists of spring arrivals but have been supplemented by 
further details in correspondence. I have also received some 
comments upon the list as published from J. H. Fleming. The 
pertinent new information is embodied in the following continua- 
tion and the Addenda at the end. 


80. Ceryle alcyon. Brtrep KincrisH—er.— We found the species 
rather scarce on the river. This is probably accounted for by the cloudi- 
ness of the water which hides the fish. One bird was seen near Camp 4 
near Nevis and Young recorded two at Camp 11 at Little Sandhill Creek. 
We have three birds taken by Geo. Sternberg at Morrin, August and 
September, 1915. Horsbrough records the Kingfisher nesting at Red 
Deer and Farley notes it occasionally at Camrose. 

81. Dryobates villosus. Harry Woopprcker.— Not very common 
anywhere but more seen in the upper parts of the river in the wooded 
sections than lower down. Singles or pairs seen at camps 1, 4,6 and 83. 
Specimen from Camp 1 also one from Rumsey, September 24, 1915, 
taken by Geo. Sternberg and another from Buffalo Lake, November 9, 
1914, by Horsbrough who reports nest at Sylvan Lake. I ascribe them 
all by their large size to lewcomelas. One specimen in Fleming’s collection 
lately examined by me overmeasures any D. v. leucomelas I have previously 
seen, having a wing 140 mm. Our next largest specimen is but 132. 

82. Dryobates pubescens. Downy Woopprckrer.— Not seen by 
us but both Horsbrough and Farley report it as a common resident and a 


! Published by permission of the Geological Survey, Ottawa, Ont. 


Meare ve TAVERNER, Birds of Red Deer River, Alta. 249 


Vegrevisle 
La 


Many /sland 
Tehe 


ones 


ethbridge 


ee 
Scale of Mises 
- 10 20 30 40 § 


250 TAVERNER, Birds of Red Deer Rwer, Alta. fen 


breeder. The former refers the local form to D. p. nelsoni, probably on 
geographical grounds for we have an Edmonton specimen, August 13, 1886, 
that has been identified by Oberholser as homorus. A female, Red Deer, 
April 19, 1916 in Fleming’s collection agrees so closely with larger speci- 
mens from New Brunswick and eastern Ontario that I see no grounds for 
separating it from them and following Oberholser’s determination of a 
Banff bird August 13, 1891, ascribe it to D. p. medianus. 

83. Picoides arcticus. Arctic THREE-TOED WooppEecKER.— Under 
the subspecific designation, P. a. arcticus, Bangs lists five specimens, with- 
out date (collections of Wm. Brewster, and E. A. and O. Bangs) from Red 
Deer, Auk, XVII, 1900, —139. 

84. Picoides americanus. AMERICAN THREE-TOED WOODPECKER.— 
Mr. Farley reports taking a specimen in winter at Red Deer. He makes 
no subspecific determination. Geographically P. a. fasciatus is the proba- 
bility. 

85.* Sphyrapicus varius. YELLOW-BELLIED SAPsuCKER.— Quite 
common on the upper parts of the river but as the country grew more 
arid it became scarcer and none were seen below Camp 5. One specimen, 
a female with black cap, Camp 1, June 30. Horsbrough records it breed- 
ing. 

86. Phlootomus pileatus. PrueatreED Woopprecker.— Farley says 
he knows of a few having been killed at Red Deer in winter. 

87.* Colaptes auratus. Fuicker.— Common throughout the river 
as far as we travelled. Of the four birds taken by us and by Geo. Stern- 
berg at Morrin but one is a pure auratus, the remaining specimens all having 
slight to strong traces of cafer blood indicated by the color of the large 
shafts, the graying of the throat or red in the black moustache. Near 
Camp 1, Young saw what he thought to be a red-shafted Flicker and 
doubtless birds that are more strongly cafer exist in the region, though 
auratus seems to be the predominating influence. Two birds, May 2 and 
July 17 Red Deer in Fleming’s collection are pure auratus. Farley says 
he has seen nothing at either Red Deer or Camrose that he can ascribe to 
cafer. It would seem that the cafer influence is farther reaching on the 
lower than the upper parts of the river. Horsbrough on a guarded sug- 
sestion from Fleming refers his specimens to C. a. borealis. 

88.* Chordeiles virginianus. NicurHawk.— Though rather rare 
at Camp 1, the Nighthawk became more abundant as we descended the 
river. None could be collected however, until Camp 11 was reached, where 
breeding birds were also noted. Our single bird, July 30, is considerably 
lighter even than several hesperis as identified by Dr. Oberholser. I 
therefore tentatively refer it to sennett?. I suspect that this is the form 
of the arid southern sections, as a Red Deer Bird collected by Sternberg, 
June 4, 1915, is evidently virginianus, as is another from Banff determined 
by Oberholser. 

89. Archilochus or Selasphorus. Hummincsirp.— Mr. Farley 
reports having seen one Hummingbird at Red Deer the summer of 1892. 


Vol. XXXVI] Taverner, Birds of Red Deer River, Alta. 251 


He thought it a Ruby-throat at the time, but this requires confirmation 
by specimens for confident acceptance. 

90.* Tyrannus tyrannus. Kincprrp.— Rather scarce on the upper 
parts of the river. At Camp 1, we noted but a single bird, and until Camp 
4 but occasional individuals were glimpsed in the distance. Below Camp 
4, near Nevis, however, Kingbirds became common. The last one seen 
was September 7. ‘Two specimens, Camps 43 and 11. 

91.* Tyrannus verticalis. Arkansas Kincprrp.— Only seen at 
Camp 11 after I left. Young says ‘‘ Not as common as the Kingbird.” 
Three taken July 31. Not listed by either Horsbrough or Farley. Prob- 
ably an inhabitant of the more southern sections of the river. 

92.* Sayornis phebe. PHasr.— Not uncommon as far down the 
river as Camp 6, Tolman’s Ferry, but not noted below. One specimen, 
Camp 2. 

93.* Sayornis sayus. Say’s PHa@pr.— One pair were nesting near 
the top of a cliff near Camp 2, and seen again the next day while en route. 
At Camp 6, Tolman’s Ferry, Young found it nesting in the adjoining hills 
and took a specimen. From then on they were seen almost daily and at 
Camp 11, Little Sandhill Creek, they were quite common. It nests on 
small ledges on the cliff faces and seems rather more common in the arid 
than the humid country. Specimens from Camps 6, 8 and 11, the last 
being September 14. Not mentioned by either Farley or Horsbrough. 

94. Nuttallornis borealis. O.rivn-sipep FLycatcHer.— Farley re- 
ports this species at Red Deer, May 22, 1905. 

95.* Myochanes richardsoni. Wersrern Woop PrwrEE.— Wood 
Pewee-like notes were heard constantly about Camp 1, but the birds were 
so shy that one was collected with difficulty. The notes were much like 
those of our eastern Wood Pewee but different enough in quality to be 
distinctive. They were not noted often thereafter but from August 6 to 
25, Young took several at Camp 11, on Little Sandhill Creek. 

96.* Empidonax trailli. Tratiu’s FrycarcHer.— On the uplands 
about Camp 1, in the thickets adjoining sloughs, this species was recog- 
nized a number of times. Thereafter we were seldom in proper country 
for it. At Camp 11 on the Little Sandhill Creek, Young collected speci- 
mens, August 9 and 11, probably early migrants. Both are referable to 
E.t.alnorum. Farley lists it at Red Deer and Camrose. 

97.* Empidonax minimus. Least FrycatrcHer. — Common 
all along the river. Specimens taken at Camps 3, 33, 5 and 11. 

98.* Otocoris alpestris. Hornep Larx.— We saw no Horned Larks 
until Camp 11 on the Little Sandhill Creek was reached, where Young 
reports that he found them common on the flats of the north side of the 
river feeding on wild buckwheat. Fourteen specimens were taken between 
July 26 and September 20. These are all lewcolema as recognized by the 
A. O. U. or enthemia according to Oberholser and Ridgway. 

99.* Pica pica. Maacpire.— One of the pleasures of the trip was 
acquaintanceship with this bird. We heard of occasional Magpies being 


202 TAVERNER, Birds of Red Deer River, Alta. Res 


seen about Camp 1, but did not meet with them personally until between 
Camp 5 and 6 when we found a family party of partially fledged birds 
discussing the world and things in general in the Saskatoon bushes. ‘‘ Chat- 
tering like a Magpie ”’ hardly gives a clear idea of the performances. They 
keep it up continually in season and out, but the talk is deliberate rather 
than ‘ chattering.’”’ They are never still for a minute and their curiosity 
is insatiable. Every morning our camp was the center of interest and 
conversation to a group of these long-tailed clowns, uniting the gravity 
of judges with the talkativeness of a debating society. At Camp 11 a 
nearby creek bed cut down some twelve feet below the general level and 
dry and parched in the sun was the repository of our empty cans and table 
scraps. Magpies were always in attendance and no sooner had the falling 
can ceased its noisy rattling and come to rest than a “ Pie”’ was on hand 
to glean what it might from its depths. They seemed to go in small 
companies, probably original families though perhaps in some cases more 
than one brood had joined together and haunted the brush in the wooded 
river edges or the low dense tangle on hill tops sailing from clump to clump 
and furtively following one another from cover to cover. Their nests were 
conspicuous objects in the heavier bush. Great oval masses of sticks 
four or five feet high and two or three feet through with the nest in the 
center reached by openings in opposite sides for ingress and egress. The 
fact that we invariably found them in the neighborhood or not more than 
a hundred yards or so from nests of Red-tail or Swainson’s Hawks may or 
may not have a meaning; nor is it clear, if it is more than accidental, 
which — the “Pie ”’ or the hawk — was first to choose the locality. Speci- 
mens were obtained at Camps 53 and 11 while we have others from Rumsey 
and Morrin collected by Geo. Sternberg. 

Farley, Horsbrough and Dr. George of Red Deer, all declare that this 
species is increasing. Farley writes,— ‘“ No one knew this bird ten years 
ago and for the past few years a month does not pass that some one does 
not ask about it. I think this about its limit line as I never saw or heard 
of one farther north than ten miles from Camrose.” 

100.* Cyanocitta cristata. Buur Jay.— Fairly common on the 
upper parts of the river but not seen below Camp 4, near Nevis. One 
specimen, Camp 1. Reported nesting by Horsbrough. 

101. Perisoreus canadensis. Canapa JAy.— Spreadborough’s hy- 
pothetical record of this species at Red Deer is substantiated by Farley 
who says he found two nests of the Canada Jay ten miles east of Red 
Deer, the eggs from which he sent to W. E. Saunders of London, Ont. 
According to Oberholser’s determinations these birds should probably be 
referred to P. c. canadensis. 

102. Corvus corax. Raven.— Farley says,— “The Raven is seen 
nearly every November at Red Deer. I have never seen them brought in 
except in early winter.” 

103.* Corvus brachyrhynchos. American Crow.— Only fairly 
common in the narrow parts of the valley where the river is in closer 


— TS AA ee 


Vol. XXXVI] Taverner, Birds of Red Deer River, Alta. 253 


proximity to cultivation. Below, where the valley is wide, and more 
arid conditions prevail, it was but occasionally seen. Young reports, at 
Camp 11 on the Little Sandhill Creek after the middle of September, that 
they appeared in large flocks. The farmers about Camp 1 did not regard 
the crow as dangerous to crops but complained of the number of small 
chickens they kill and the duck nests they rob. Specimens from Camp 
84 and 11, also Morrin, October, 1916, Geo. Sternberg and Alix, April 24, 
1914, Horsbrough. Amongst our prairie province specimens I can find 
little to substantiate the Western Crow, hesperis. The birds of smallest 
measurement in our collections come from Ottawa and Point Pelee, On- 
tario; Red Deer, Alberta; and Lillooet, British Columbia, whilst our 
largest specimens are from Ottawa and Indian Head, Saskatchewan. 
Even the averages from eastern and western Canadian specimens are too 
similar for the recognition of any subspecies. I therefore prefer to class 
these birds with the type form brachyrhynchos. | 

104.* Molothrus ater. Cowsirp.— Rather scarce. We saw but 
two at Camp 1. Young took a specimen at Camp 11 on the Little Sand- 
hill Creek, August 2. We also have one bird from Morrin, July 1916, 
taken by Geo. Sternberg. The bird from Camp 11 is a juvenile but ex- 
traordinarily heavily striped below, almost as conspicuously so as a juve- 
nile Red-wing. Above, every feather is bordered with sharp buffy edges. 
The Morrin bird is similar but does not depart from normal in so marked 
a degree. As these are both juveniles their measurements are not satis- 
factory for subspecific comparison. Examining our series of western 
Cowbird specimens I can only see that they average slightly larger than 
eastern ones. The bills are comparatively a little longer but the concave 
character shown by Grinnell as characteristic of artemisie@ is not recog- 
nizable even though the sage brush Artemisia tridentata with which its 
range is supposed to coincide extends far north of here to the Peace River 
Valley. Without further data I can only regard these Red River birds 
as abnormal ater. 

105. Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus. YrELLOW-HEADED BLACK- 
BIRD.— Not seen by us owing probably to the absence of extensive marshes 
in the localities visited. Geo. Sternberg reports having seen one at Camp 
11 before our arrival. Mr. Farley lists it at Red Deer and Camrose. 

106.* Agelaius phoeniceus. Rep-wincreD Buiacksirp.— Not very 
common but occurring in most of the suitable localities visited by us. 
More common on the prairie level where sloughs are more numerous than 
in the valley. Specimens from Camp 1 and 4. After comparing these 
and other prairie specimens with eastern birds I can only say that there 
is a larger percentage of oversized birds amongst them than in the East. 
I can see no constant difference in the bills and hence am not justified in 
referring them to anything but pheniceus. Horsbrough refers his, proba- 
bly on geographical considerations to P. a. fortis. 

107.* Sturnella neglecta. Western Mrapow Larx.— We did 
not find this bird very common in the river valley and not overly numerous 


254 TAVERNER, Birds of Red Deer River, Alta. [eee 


upon the prairie levels when they were visited. Later in the season, 
Young reports that they were common at Camp 11 in early morning 
when they came down from the Prairie level to drink at the river. Speci- 
mens from Camp 1 and 11, also two Morrin birds, August and July, Geo. 
Sternberg. ; 

108. Icterus galbula. BattimorrE Ortote.— Horsbrough records 
the nesting of the Baltimore Oriole at Red Deer and Farley pronounces it 
common. Neither seem to be acquainted with Bullock’s. In our col- 
lections are specimens of galbula from Edmonton and bullocki from Medi- 
cine Hat where, however, Spreadborough also noted the former. Possibly 
the division between the two occurs somewhere between the two cities and 
the Baltimore is the form at Red Deer. 

109.* Icterus bullocki. Butiock’s Ortote.— Only two _ orioles 
seen and those two of this species. Taken at Camp 11, Little Sandhill 
Creek, August 29. 

110.* Euphagus carolinus. Rusty Buiackpirrp.— One specimen, 
Alix, Alberta, April 22, 1914, by Horsbrough who infers in his annotations 
that it is only a migrant at Red Deer though Farley reports it as with 
Brewer’s,— ‘fa very common spring and fall migrant and quite plentiful 
breeding along the streams in the willows.’’ I was hardly prepared to 
regard this as a breeder in this locality. 

111.* Euphagus cyanocephalus. Brewerr’s BLAckBirRD.— Gen- 
erally distributed throughout the river valley but nowhere exceedingly 
common. Young noted a large migrant flock at Camp 11, Little Sandhill 
Creek, the middle of September. Specimens, Camp 1 and 11. Farley 
reports it breeding along the streams in the willows. 

112*. Quiscalus quiscula. Crow Buiackpirp.— Only a few seen 
at Camp 1, about Brock’s Lake where they were nesting in Flicker holes. 
One specimen, Camp 1, another Buffalo Lake, August, 1915.— Horsbrough. 
Regarded as common by all correspondents. 

113. Hesperiphona vespertina. Eventnc GRosBEAK.— Farley says, 
— ‘“ The Evening Grosbeak is not regular in winter. It comes for about 
a month about every other winter, always feeding on the seeds of the 
Manitoba Maple.’”’ Red Deer Specimens, May 6, in Fleming’s collection. 

114. Pinicola enucleator. Pine GrospraKx.— Farley says,— “ Pine 
Grosbeaks are fairly common all winter especially along the rivers in the 
spruce,— never saw them after May 1.” Horsbrough lists them under 
P. e. leucura on J. H. Fleming’s determination based upon a bird with an 
imperfect bill. I have examined this bird but the subspecific characters 
are so faintly indicated in our comparative series that I prefer to withhold 
judgment upon the determination. 

115.* Carpodacus purpureus. Purpie Fincnu.— Not seen on the 
upper river at all and at Camp 11, Little Sandhill Creek, only after I left. 
Young reports that beginning August 18, he noted one to five daily to 
September 7. He observes that they were feeding on the seeds of the 
black birch. One specimen, Camp 11, August 18. Listed by Farley as 


" LeCreiade ] TAVERNER, Birds of Red Deer River, Alta. 259 


common at Red Deer though Horsbrough gives only individual records. 

116.* Loxia curvirostra. AmerrIcAN CrossBILL.— One specimen 
taken at Camp 11, Little Sandhill Creek, July 21. It is a juvenile with 
clear skull but with the red beginning to replace the yellow plumage. 
About the face and throat is a powder deposit similar to that on a Jasper 
Park bird that was feeding upon woolly aphides suggesting that this bird 
was subsisting upon a similar diet. Farley regards it as common all 
winter, and I infer regular, but ‘“‘ never noted after May.” 

117. Leucosticte tephrocotis. Rosy Fincu.— Farley says,— “ I 


_ have seen the Leucosticte in November around the coal mines in the Red 


Deer valley where you go under the C. P. R. bridge. They were the 
tamest birds I ever saw and I suppose had just blown down from the tops 
of the mountains.”’ He later informed me that he sent a specimen to 
W. E. Saunders, London, Ont., who pronounced it Gray-crowned L. t. 
tephrecotis. 

118. Acanthis linaria. Reppoitit.— Both Horsbrough and Farley 
report Redpolls in winter. The former identifies them as A. l. linaria and 
the latter says he “‘ cannot say that he has been sure of more than one 
kind,” he thinks, “‘ the smaller one.” 

119.* Astragalinus tristis. AmmrRICAN GOLDFINCH.— Seen in limited 
numbers all along the river. At Camp 11, Little Sandhill Creek, Young 
reports large flocks feeding on the seeds of the wild sunflower Helianthis 
petiolaris in early September. One specimen from Camp 1 and four from 
Camp 11. All these birds are of a slightly deeper and richer yellow 
than eastern ones. The difference, however, is very little and only appre- 
ciable when numbers are massed together. I do not think that individual 
specimens can be recognized. In size there are more large birds in the 
western series, but the extremes in size, east and west, exhibit little, if 
any, difference. Under such circumstances I cannot see that it is worth 
while recognizing the Pale Goldfinch, pallidus in these specimens. Hors- 
brough refers his specimen to “A. ¢. tristis. Pale Goldfinch ”’ (sic). With 
this conflict between scientific and vernacular terminology, it is left to sur- 
mise which he intends. 

120.* Spinus pinus. Pine Siskrn.— A small flock seen at Camp 3. 
One at Camp 11, Little Sandhill Creek, August 15 and 22. Specimens, 
Camp 3 and 11. Given as winter visitor by both Horsbrough and Farley. 

121.* Calcarius lapponicus. LapLanp Lonaspur.— Seen at Camp 
11, Little Sandhill Creek, between September 10 and 15. Specimens, 
September, 13 and 15. Farley gives many April dates for both Red Deer 
and Camrose. 

122.* Calcarius ornatus. CHESTNUT-COLLARED LoNGspuR.— One 
seen, July 26 at Camp 11, Little Sandhill Creek, becoming fairly common 
September 10 to 13 then no more until the 20th when two were noted. 
Specimens Camp 11, July 26 and September 13. Farley reports them 
very common in May and in autumn but does not remember them in sum- 
mer. 


256 TAVERNER, Birds of Red Deer River, Alta. aoe 


123.* Pocecetes gramineus. Vesper Sparrow.— Rare along the 
river valley but common whenever we visited the upper levels. Young 
reports it common up on the prairie and along the creek beds at Camp 11, 
Little Sandhill Creek. Nine specimens from Camps 1,6, 8 and1ll. They 
are obviously referable to P. g. confinis. 

124.* Passerculus sandwichensis. SavaNNAH SparRRow.— Quite 
common in the more cultivated sections but scarce or absent over much 
of the river valley. At Camp 11, Little Sandhill Creek, very scarce at 
first, only two seen in August, but began to be numerous late in September. 
13 specimens, Camps I and 11. Two types of coloration are exhibited in 
these specimens. Those from Camp 1 are all yellow eyebrowed birds, 
while amongst those from Camp 11 occur yellow and white eyebrows. 
Until a detailed study is made of Canadian Savannah Sparrows I do not 
~ eare to make subspecifie determination. P. s. alaudinus is the generally 
accepted form in Canada west of Ontario. 

125.* Passerherbulus lecontei. Lrecontn’s Sparrow.— But one 
recognized near Camp 1, in a dry slough. Young found occasional scat- 
ered individuals at Camp 11, Little Sandhill Creek, two of which were 
in marshes on the upper levels, the remainder being in the desert lowlands. 
It is evident from the specimens obtained that the species has a distinct 
juvenile plumage composed of soft golden stripings quite different from 
the first winter plumage which is similar to that of the adult spring colora- 
tion. Specimens from Camp 1 and 11. Farley knows the species and 
does not regard it as rare. 

126. Passerherbulus nelsoni. Netson’s SHARP-TAIL.— Farley re- 
ports shooting this species for identification and finding it quite common 
in the open country around large flat sloughs. 

127.* Chondestes grammacus. Lark Sparrow.— Fairly common 
at Camp 11, Little Sandhill Creek, not seen elsewhere or after August 17. 
Specimens from Camp 11. I am not prepared with eastern specimens to 
differentiate between the two races grammacus and _ strigatus. Neither 
Farley nor Horsbrough mentions this species at Red Deer and it probably 
does not occur there regularly. 

128.* Zonotrichia leucophrys. WHuITE-cROWNED Sparrow.— Not 
noted until September 3, Camp 11 on the Little Sandhill Creek. Young 
reports them quite common then along the river feeding on dogwood 
seeds and Buffalo berries. Four specimens Camp 11, September 3 to 12. 
Only one of these is in high plumage. It is obviously Z. l. gambeli and all 
are inferentially included under the same subspecies. Listed as a common 
migrant by Farley. 

129.* Zonotrichia albicollis. Wuirn-rHRoaTED SparRow.— Quite 
common and evidently breeding on the upper part of the river, but not 
noted below Camp 4 near Nevis, until they put in an appearance at Camp 
11, on the Little Sandhill Creek, August 22, when Young met limited 
numbers with fair regularity. Specimens from Camp 1 and 11. 

130. Spizella monticola. Trem Sparrow.— Listed as a common 


oo a TAVERNER, Birds of Red Deer River, Alta. PAB 


migrant by Farley at Red Deer and Camrose. Horsbrough records 
spring birds under title of S. m. ochracea. 

131.* Spizella passerina. Cuippinc Sparrow.— Unexpectedly ab- 
sent from the upper parts of the river. Young reported one at Camp 4 
but it was not until we reached Camp 11 on the Little Sandhill Creek that 
we met them again. Here they were quite common and remained so until 
the first week in September. Four specimens from Camp 11, July 20, 27 
and 28. I refer them to S. p. arizone. 

132.* Spizella pallida. Ciay-coLorrp SpAaRRow.— Common every- 
where along the river,— the only generally common sparrow. Specimens 
from Camps 1, 5 and 11. 

133.* Junco hyemalis. Siare-coLtorED JuNco.— Fairly common 
and breeding as far down the river as Camp 4, near Nevis. Below, they 
became less numerous and none were seen below Camp 6 at Tolman’s 
Ferry, until the migrants came in September 17. Specimens from Camps 
1 and 11. These birds show no tendency towards either pink sides or 
red backs and can only be referred to J. h. hyemalis. 

134.* Melospiza melodia. Sona Sparrow.— Common throughout 
the entire trip. 15 specimens from Camps 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 11; also 
one July 20, Morrin,— Geo. Sternberg. Though much more worn and 
hardly comparable with other material on hand, these specimens are just 
what would be expected from much abraded juddi. Specimens from 
Camps 5, 8 and 11 and Morrin are considerably darker than the others, 
reversing the expectation that light not dark birds would be found in the 
more arid sections. Horsbrough lists his specimens as M. m. melodia. 
It is not evident whether he has considered juddi or not. 

135.* Melospiza lincolni. Lincoin’s Sparrow.— Not seen until 
August 25 at Camp 11 on the Little Sandhill Creek. They gradually 
grew more common until September 5 when they became very numerous 
in open woods and low lands and especially so on the prairie level. One 
specimen irom Camp 11. Though not mentioned by Horsbrough, Farley 
regards Lincoln’s Sparrow as a not uncommon breeder at both Red Deer 
and Camrose, saying,— ‘It appears to be regularly distributed but not 
thickly. I can always depend on hearing at least one every few miles in 
scrubby country and have watched a pair all through the summer in the 
same brush so am sure they breed.” 

136. Melospiza georgiana. Swamp Sparrow.— Reported by Farley 
from Red Deer as not common. 

137.* Passerella iliaca. Fox Sparrow.— Reported by W. E. 
Saunders at Red Deer in June 1906, in ‘Catalogue Canadian Birds,’—J. 
_ and J. M. Macoun, 1909, not seen by us. Farley says,— ‘‘ The Fox Sparrow 
is a regular breeder in localities. Have known several places where they 
breed regularly,— as many as a dozen pairs on a mile square. In such 
places their song is the commonest of any bird.’”’ These are probably P. 7. 
iliaca. 

138.* Pipilo maculatus. Sporrep Towsrr.— Towhees were not 


258 TAVERNER, Birds of Red Deer River, Alta. [RAae 


observed until we reached Camp 5, Ross’s Ranch, where they suddenly 
became quite common, thus putting in an appearance with the first de- 
cidedly arid conditions. They remained common the rest of the trip. 
The spotted Towhee has a varied vocal repertoire. While many of its 
notes are strongly reminiscent of the Chewink, none are exactly similar 
and it has many peculiar to itself. The familiar Che-week was not heard 
but the ‘“ ya-ree-ee-e ”’ song was quite recognizable with slight but obvious 
variation. Six specimens from Camps 5, 6,8 and 11. Naturally all are 
referable to P. m. arcticus. Towhees are not mentioned by either Hors- 
brough or Farley. Probably this is another species whose limit is south 
of Red Deer. 

139.* Zamelodia ludoviciana. Rosr-BREASTED GROSBEAK.— One 
seen and taken at Camp 1 but not noted again until August 19 and 20 at 
Camp 11 on the Little Sandhill Creek when singles were observed. Juve- 
niles and females seem to differ from those of the Black-headed Grosbeak 
only in the absence of traces of lemon yellow on the under parts. The 
Camp 1 specimen is peculiar in having a large bright red throat patch in 
addition to the usual breast spot. I have seen indications or suggestion 
of this in other specimens but in none others examined has it been entire 
and pronounced. Specimens from Camps 1 and 11. Reported nesting 
at Red Deer by Horsbrough. 

140.* Zamelodia melanocephala. BLAcK-HEADED GROSBEAK.— 
Only seen at Camp 11 during August where Young reports it as being not 
uncommon. Specimens from Camp 11, August 11. Not mentioned by 
any Red Deer correspondent, probably of more southern distribution. 

141.* Pirangaludoviciana. WrstTern TANAGER.— Only a few seen 
by Young at Camp 11, on the Little Sandhill Creek the last of August 
and first of September. Specimens August 21 and 25. Diuppie reports 
skins and eggs from Red Deer and Horsbrough records nests at the same 
place. 

142. Progne subis. Purepte Martin.— Horsbrough records occa- 
sional birds between Mirror and Buffalo Lake and nests in rotten stumps 
near Sylvan Lake but says they are not common. Specimen in Fleming 
collection. 

143.* Petrochelidon lunifrons. Cuirrr SwaLLow.— Very abundant 


along the whole river, nesting in large colonies under the overhangs of . 
£ ’ g £ 


cliff ledges. In places the cliff face is covered solidly over many square 
yards with nests. Not all of these colonies are occupied, and I presume 
that they are used but a single season and that the colony seeks new loca- 
tion yearly until the old nests gradually weather away and make room 
for new ones. It was interesting to note that though many colonies 
seemed to be built in exposed situations, when rain came, all we observed 
remained dry while the surrounding cliff face was soaked with wet that 
would have instantly dissolved the frail clay structures. There is obviously 
more method in their choice of site than is evident on a casual survey. 
As it was, we noted many colonies that seemed to have been in situ for 


ye iot9 | TAVERNER, Birds of Red Deer River, Alta. 259 


several years, illustrating the discrimination of their judgment. In one 
such colony I found old swallow nests doing new service for House Wrens 
that had filled them with sticks and were rearing families within them. 
Rather unexpectedly we found many occupied nests in the immediate 
vicinity of Duck Hawk and Prairie Falcon eyries. See antea plate opp. 
p. 11. We often found them plastered right up to and on the very ledges 
so occupied and the swallows coming and going without the slightest 
hesitation in the presence of the Falcons. So often did we observe this, 
that it suggested that such vicinities were matters of choice rather than the 
accident of indifference. Specimens from Camp 2 and 11, none seen after 
August 11. 

144. Hirundo erythrogastra. Barn Swattow.— Not noted on the 
upper parts of the river but a few were seen at Camp 6, Tolman’s Ferry. 
At Camp 11, Little Sandhill Creek, Young observed a few each day until 
September 25. Reported from Red Deer by both Horsbrough and Farley 
but apparently not common. 

145. Iridoprocne bicolor. Tree Swattow.— But two individuals 
noted at Camp 1, July 1 and 2. Farley seems to regard it as common 
and Horsbrough records nests at Buffalo and Haunted Lakes. 

148. Riparia riparia. Bank Swauttow.—Seen constantly all the 
way down the river and at Camp 11, Little Sandhill Creek, until the end 
of July after which none were noted. They nest in the many banks 
lining the river. As these are constantly caving in and sliding into the 
river, great numbers of birds and nests must be annually destroyed. They 
show less foresight in the choice of nesting sites than do the Cliff Swallows. 
Horsbrough records only a single nest and Farley refers to but a few. It 
probably keeps close to the river banks where it is not seen by the general 
observer. 

147. Bombycilla garrula. Bonemian Waxwine.— Horsbrough re- 
cords this species as — ‘‘ During the summer this species was common 
throughout the Alix district.’”” He records nests on the authority of Dr. 
George of Red Deer and Mr. Cook of Buffalo Lake. These observers 
seem perfectly familiar with the Cedar bird so this rather unexpected 
record can not be altogether disregarded on the grounds of confusion 


' between similar appearing species. 


148.* Bombycilla cedrorum. Crpar Waxwina.— Fairly common 
throughout the river. Specimens, Camp 11, July 20 and August 14. 

149. Lanius borealis. NorraerNn Surike.— Farley notes the 
Northern Shrike at Camrose in November and December. 

150.* Lanius ludovicianus. LoGccrrHEAD SHrRIKkE.— Only seen at 
Camp 11 where one or perhaps two families were reared and I took a 
female with accompanying young and later Young took a single adult 
female. Specimens, July 21 and 28. Only one of these is subspecifically 
determinable, it has the extensive white rump typical of ZL. 1. excubitorides. 
Farley gives spring dates for the species at both Red Deer and Camrose. 

151.* Vireosylva olivacea. Rrp-kyED Vireo.— Seen fairly con- 


260 TAVERNER, birds of Red Deer River, Alta. Peni 


stantly all the way down the river but less common below than above 
where the banks are more wooded. At Camp 11, Young did not meet it 
until August 20 nor after September 1; and never in any numbers. Speci- 
mens from Camps 1, 8 and 11. 

152.* Vireosylva philadelphia. PuHinaprELpHiA VirEO.— Taken at 
Camps 1 and 3 but not recognized again. At Camp 11, Young saw a few 
small vireos but no Philadelphias were recognized. At Camp 1, a male 
and female were taken June 30 and July 3. The abdomens of both showed 
indications of incubations and doubtless it was an original pair of breeding 
birds. Horsbrough records a nest at Sylvan Lake he supposes to be of 
this species. 

153.* Vireosylva gilva. Warpiinc VirEo.— Small Vireos were not 
common anywhere on the river. The only ones positively identified by 
capture proved to be Philadelphias until August 16 when Young took a 
Warbling at Camp 11 on the Little Sandhill Creek. Occasional specimens 
were seen that he took to be the same species until September 5. I refer 
this specimen to V. g. gilva. 

154.* Lanivireo solitarius. Soxirrary Virro.— One seen and col- 
lected at Camp 11, Little Sandhill Creek, and six were noted the same place, 
September 1. 

155.* Mniotilta varia. Buack anp Waite WarsLer.— Only seen 
at Camp 11, Little Sandhill Creek, between August 13 and September 1. 
Two specimens taken. 

156.* Vermivora celata. ORANGE-CROWNED WARBLER.— One adule 
male taken at Camp 2. Its song was slightly reminiscent of a wren and I 
suspect it was nesting nearby. Occasional birds were seen and taken at 
Camp 11, Little Sandhill Creek, between August 25 and September 17. 
This specimen is colored light enough for V. c. orestera, its size is small 
for any race but JV. c. lutescens, under which confliction of characters I 
prefer to leave its subspecific identity open, together with the four Camp 11 
juveniles that accompany it. 

157.* Vermivora peregrina. TENNESSEE WaARBLER.— Seen at 
Camp 1, where I suspected it was nesting but received no corroborative 
evidence other than season and its uneasy actions. Seen for a few days 
after the middle of August at Camp 11 on the Little Sandhill Creek. 
Specimens from Camp 1 and 11, August 13, 15 and 21. From Farley’s 
notes this appears to be quite a common species at both Red Deer and 
Camrose,— at least in spring. 

158.* Dendroica estiva. YrnLow WarBLER.— Not abundant but 
a few seen at nearly every camp. Not common at Camp 11, Little Sand- 
hill Creek, except from August 9 to September 8 after which they decreased, 
disappearing altogether September 17. Specimens, Camp 2, 5, 73, 8 and 
Li. 

159.* Dendroica coronata. Myrrine WarsBLER.— One seen at 
Camp 2 was the only one observed until August 23 after which they grad- 
ually increased in numbers during Young’s stay. Specimens from Camp 


"2S ial TAvERNER, Birds of Red Deer River, Alta. 261 


11, August 23 and September 8 and 18. The first one is in striped juvenile 
plumage and was probably raised nearby. 

160.* Dendroica magnolia. MaanoitiA WARBLER.— Two seen and 
taken, September 1, at Camp 11, Little Sandhill Creek. 

161.* Dendroica striata. BuacKk-poLLED WarBLER.— Only seen 
at Camp 11, Little Sandhill Creek, August 28 and September 1. Two 
specimens, the latter date. 

162.* Dendroica virens. BuAcK-THROATED GREEN WARBLER.— 
But one seen and collected at Camp 11, Little Sandhill Creek, August 17. 

163. Dendroica palmarum. Patm WarBLeER— Two birds seen by 
Young at Camp 11, Little Sandhill Creek, September 1. 

164.* Seiurus aurocapillus. Ovensirp.— Heard nearly every day 
about Camp 1, but none noted again until Young secured two at Camp 11, 
Little Sandhill Creek, August 27 and September 1. 

165.* Seiurus noveboracensis. NorrHerN Water-THRusH.— One 
or two seen nearly every day the last week in August at Camp 11, Little 
Sandhill Creek, specimens, August 20 and 21. These are referable to 
S. n. notabilis. 

166.* Oporoenis philadelphia. Mournine Warsier.— At Camp 1, 
where warblers were scarce, this was the species most often met with. A 
mated pair were taken just below Camp 4 near Nevis. In all these birds 
the abdomen was bare and thickened so they were undoubtedly breeding. 
Young took another at Camp 11, Little Sandhill Creek, August 17. The 
male of the Camp 4 pair, is typical philadelphia but the female has the 
eyelid spots as pronounced as in many female Macgillivray’s Warblers. 
It is evident that females of the two species may be difficult of separation. 
This specimen unaccompanied by its mate would almost unhesitatingly 
be referred to O. tolmiet. The Camp 11 specimen is also interesting. By 
skull structure it is a juvenile but is very different in coloration from any 
other specimen in our collection. It is Empire Yellow below warming 
to Primuline Yellow,! instead of Lemon Chrome changing to Sulphur 
Yellow on neck and throat as is shown by comparable August and Sep- 
tember material from Point Pelee, Ontario. However, fall specimens of 
this species are scarce in collections and I have no fall juveniles of tolmiei 
for comparison and include it under philadelphia on the strength of ac- 
companying specimens. 

167.* Geothlypis trichas. MaryLanp YELLOW-THROAT.— Sparingly 
distributed but seen practically throughout, the trip and becoming a little 
more common as we descended. The last week in August they were fairly 
common at Camp 11 on the Little Sandhill Creek but thinned out after 
the first of September. Specimens from Camps 43,8 and 11. In harmony 
with the findings of the A. O. U.C ommittee as indicated in the ‘ Check-list,’ 
I am inclined to refer our Canadian prairie Yellow-throats to occidentalis 
rather than to trichas, of brachidactyla, as some of them have been desig- 
nated by Oberholser. In fact I find them easily distinguishable from 


1 Ridgway’s Color Standards and Nomenclature, 1912. 


262 TAVERNER, Birds of Red Deer River, Alta. [ Fee 


birds of eastern Canada and almost if not quite inseparable from B. C. 
specimens determined as arizela by the same authority. For the present, 
I prefer to regard these birds as G. t. occidentalis. 

168.* Wilsonia pusilla. Writson Warsier. — Not seen until 
August 21 at Camp 11 on the Little Sandhill Creek after which one or two 
were seen every other day until September 18. Specimens, August 21 
to September 18. These were well marked W. p. pileolata. Some are 
rather small for this form but the colors are distinctive. 

i169. Wilsonia canadensis. CaNnapriAN WaRBLER.— Reported by 
Young at Camp 1, but not noted again. 

170.* Setophaga ruticilla. Repstarr.— Only seen at Camp 11 on 
the Little Sandhill Creek between August 26 and September 6. Specimen, 
Camp 11, August 27. 

171.* Anthus rubescens. AmerIcAN Pipit.— Pipits appeared in 
large flocks on the prairie level near Camp 11, Little Sandhill Creek, Sep- 
tember 12, but were not noted after the 17th. 

172.* Anthus spraguei. Spraaur’s Pirir.— Only seen once by 
Young at Camp 11, Little Sandhill Creek, September 13. He says it hid 
in the holes made by the feet of horses and cattle, allowed close approach, 
flushing like a grouse. Specimen Camp 11, September 13. From Farley’s 
notes it evidently occurs at Red Deer but is more common in the vicinity 
of Camrose. 

173.* Dumetella carolinensis. Carsirp.— Fairly common along 
the whole river. At Camp 11, Little Sandhill Creek, they fed upon Buffalo 
berries. None were noted after September 7. Specimens, Camp 2 and 11. 

174.* Toxostoma rufum. Brown THRASHER.— Only seen occa- 
sionally at Camp 11 on the Little Sandhill Creek. None observed after 
September 1. Specimen, Camp 11, August 6. 

175.* Salpinctes obsoletus. Rock Wren.— Not seen until we 
reached Camp 11, on the Little Sandhill Creek. There they appeared 
fairly common, the greatest numbers being observed about the first of 
August, when fifteen were noted. The last was observed September 5. 
Specimens July 20 to 31. 

176.* Troglodytes aédon. Housrt Wrern.— Fairly common every- 
where but very shy. I do not think the song of the western birds is such 
a spontaneous bubbling over as is the case of our eastern ones. It is 
thinner and more restrained. At Camp 2 we found it occupying old Cliff 
Swallow nests. Common at Camp 11, Little Sandhill Creek until after 
the first of September when it gradually became less numerous. Speci- 
mens 6, from Camps 1, 8, 11 all T. a. parkmani. 

177. Telmatodytes palustris. Lonc-BiLLED MarsH WReEN.— Far- 
ley lists it in May and June at Red Deer and Horsbrough reports numerous 
nests around Buffalo Lake. 

178. Sitta canadensis. Rep-sreasteD NutTHatcH.— About Camp 
1, we several times heard Nuthatch voices but were unable to trace them 
to their origin and we cannot be certain of the species. Young took one 
at Camp 11 on the Little Sandhill Creek, August 21, feeding on woolly 


a | TAVERNER, Birds of Red Deer River, Alta. 263 


aphides on the cottonwoods. Neither Farley or Horsbrough report. this 
species in the breeding season though Fleming has Red Deer specimens taken 
June 10. 

179.* Penthestes atricapillus. Buack-cappEp CuicKADEE.—Chick- 
adees were fairly common all along the river. In most cases they seemed 
to be cruising about in family groups not yet separated. Five specimens all 
juvenile, from Camps 1, 3, 8 and all have the extreme white feather margi- 
nations and long tails of P. a. septentrionalis. 

180. Penthestes hudsonicus. Hupsonran Cuickaper.— Under P. 
hudsonicus, Horsbrough lists this species as a common resident and re- 
ports a nest. I have no further records for the vicinity. 

181.* Regulus calendula. Ruspy-crowNep KinGLeT.— Occasional 
birds seen at Camp 11 on the Little Sandhill Creek from the end of August 
to the end of Young’s stay becoming more common latterly. Specimen, 
Camp 11, August 29. 

182.* Hylocichla fuscescens. Wutson’s THrusH.— Fairly common ° 
as far down the river as Camp 9 below Rosedale Mines. Most of the 
records are based upon their notes as all thrushes were exceedingly shy. 
Two specimens, Camp 73. These are rather more richly colored than other 
birds from about Edmonton, less olive and more nearly like eastern speci- 
mens. Iam doubtful as to the exact subspecific status of these specimens 
but refer them to H. s. salicicola with reservations. 

183.* Hylocichla ustulata. OLivn-sackED THRusH.— Thrushes 
though common enough were very difficult to identify as they were very 
shy and only fleeting glimpses were caught of them as they slunk away 
through the brush. One Olive-back was taken at Camp 11, Little Sandhill 
Creek, September 17. Horsbrough reports nests at Sylvan Lake. 

184.* Hylocichla guttata. Hrrmir THrusy.—For the above 
reasons I only care to specifically pronounce upon the one bird taken at 
Camp 11, Little Sandhill Creek, September 22. 

185.* Planesticus migratorius. AmericAN Ropsin.— Common all 
along the river. At Camp 11, Little Sandhill Creek, Young says they fed 
extensively upon Buffalo berries. Specimens, Camp 11, September 7 to 21. 
Horsbrough refers his birds to the western form P. m. propinquus, a rather 
questionable decision. 

186.* Sialia currucoides. Mountain Biurprrp.— Some Bluebirds 
glimpsed in the outskirts of the city of Red Deer and whilst driving from 
the river to Nevis, Camp 4, we attributed to this species. Several times 
below Camp 4 we noted individuals amongst the eroded cliffs and hills 
but could not get close enough to identify them satisfactorily. It was not 
until we reached Camp 11, on the Little Sandhill Creek that the species 
was certainly recognized. Here we found them common, feeding upon 
Saskatoon berries, and later according to Young on Buffalo berries. They 
remained common up to the time he left and he noted a flock of one hun- 
dred birds, September 8. Seven specimens Little Sandhill Creek, July 20 
to September 8. Both Farley and Horsbrough report it common at Red 
Deer. 


264 TAVERNER, Birds of Red Deer River, Alta. en 


ADDENDA. 


We have received in addition to the specimens already cited the follow- 
ing, collected by Dr. R. M. Anderson, Western Grebe, 4ichmophorus occi- 
dentalis, Dried Meat Lake, near Camrose, September 20, 1918. Horned 
Grebe, Colymbus aurtius; Greater and Lesser Yellow-legs, Totanus melano- 
leucus and T. flavipes; Ruffed Grouse, Bonasa wmbellus from Miquelon 
Lake, near Camrose, September 29, 1918. 

The following species and notes should be added to the previous list: 

187.* Larus philadelphia. Bonapartrn’s Guuu.— Farley reports 
this species May 1, 1900 at Red Deer and May 13 and 16, 1917 at Camrose. 
Anderson took a specimen, September 29, 1918 at Miquelon Lake. 

(12). Phalacrocorax auritus. DovuBLr-crRESTED CORMORANT.— Far- 
ley reports that for many years this species bred on Miquelon Lake some 
24 miles southeast of Edmonton where Anderson found evidence in Sep- 
tember, 1918 of the current year’s nesting in the form of nests said to be 
Cormorant’s. 

(13). Pelecanus erythrorhynchos. Wuirre PrricaAn.—Said_ by 
Farley to have nested in numbers at Miquelon Lake until of late years 
and it is not known as yet where they have removed to. At the height of 
their nesting from 300 to 500 nests were to be seen on an island of not three 
acres extent. 

(25). Clangula clangula. GonprNryE.— Farley reports that for 
the past eight years Goldeneyes have nested in a blind brick chimney on 
the R. B. Price house in Camrose, about five feet down. The young 
clamber up the flue to the top, tumble off and roll down the roof to the 
ground where they are gathered up and conveyed to the water by human 
friends, where the mother invariably awaits to receive them. Every 
spring ducks visit many chimneys in town as if prospecting for nesting 
sites. My informant queries, ‘‘ Would these be the young that have 
remembered a similar nesting home?” The facts suggest the affirmative. 

(29). Chen hyperboreus. Snow Goosr.— Fleming informs me that 
he has examined the head of one of Horsbrough specimens, probably one 
of those he cites, and declares it to be the Lesser, C. h. hyperboreus. 

(35). Ardea herodias. Great Biur Hrron.— Anderson on an 
island in Miquelon Lake, September, 1918 found nests of this species to- 
gether with those of Cormorants on the ground. The specific identity 
was supplied by Mr. Farley and other good report. 

(36). Grus mexicana. SanpHitt Cranu.— Farley reports finding 
a crane nest on Spotted Lake near Buffalo Lake in May 1895. Dr. George 
of Red Deer also informs me that he took crane eggs on a small pond near 
Innisfail May 24, 1896. Undoubtedly these were G. mexicana. 

188. Grus americana. Wuoopinc CraNre.— Dr. George of Red 
Deer informs me that he has not seen Whooping Cranes near Red Deer 
for some years, inferring their former presence but stating that he never 
ound them breeding. 


Vol. XXXVI] Taverner, Birds of Red Deer River, Alta. 265 


189. Coturnicops noveboracensis. YrLtutow Raru.— Mr. Farley 
says,— ‘‘I know of a swamp at Red Deer where a pair nested several 
years. Their note is just like two stones knocked together quickly. 
There is also a pair in a swamp just off our farm (Camrose) where I can 
depend upon hearing them every June.” 

(42). Macrorhamphus griseus. Dowrrcuer.—In the previously 
published part of the list, antea, p. 12, under this species heading I made 
an unfortunate slip of the pen when I said that Horsbrough ascribes this 
“probably incorrectly to the western race, M. g. scolopaceus.” It should 
have read “ the eastern race, M. g. griseus, which makes my implied criti- 


~ cism more intelligible. Fleming sends me measurements of a Buffalo 


Lake bird, August 1915, which he refers to griseus though he says the color 
characters tend towards scolopaceus. I infer from his remarks that this 
is an adult and not a juvenile bird. 

190.* Pisobia bairdi. Barrp’s SAanpprpeR.— We have a specimen 
taken by Anderson, Many Island Lake, September 18, 1918. 

191. Pelidna alpina. Rerp-Backep SanppreeR.— Mr. Farley reports 
“ Black-heart Plover’ May 11, 1899 at Red Deer. This is an old South 
Ontario name for this species. 

(47). Bartramia longicauda. Upianp PLover.— Farley notes that 
this species is rapidly disappearing from this section, a condition he called 
attention to in the Ottawa Naturalist X XVII, 1913, p. 63. He now lays 
the blame upon the boys who find it a too easy object of sport through the 
summer. 

(50). Numenius longicauda. Lona-Bittep Curtew.— Farley sub- 
stantiates the hypothetical identity of this species reported by Horsbrough 
and Sternberg, recording it from both Red Deer and Camrose. 

(51). Squatarola squatarola. BuLAck-BELLIED PLover.— Chara- 
drius dominicus. Gotpen PLover.— J. H. Fleming writes me that he 
has the specimens that Horsbrough records as Golden Plover and that 
they prove to be Black-bellies. Thus the Golden should be replaced by 
the Black-bellied in the authenticated list. 

192. Buteo platypterus. Broap-wincep Hawx.— Fleming informs 
me he has a specimen, Little Hay Lake, (near Camrose) September 2, 1918. 

Falco rusticolus. Gyrratcon.— J. H. Fleming tells me he has the 
specimen reported under this head by Horsbrough which he regards as 
rusticolus. 

193. Aquila chrysaétos. GoLtpEn Eacie.— Farley reports,— “ seen 
nearly every November at Red Deer. 

(78). Bubo virginianus. Great Hornep Own.— Sonema, 5th line 
second paragraph should be “ Lousana.”’ 

194. Nyctea nyctea. Snowy Owu.— Farley remarks in letter of 
November 18, 1918, from Camrose,— ‘‘ A friend saw a Snowy Owl yester- 
day,” thus giving evidence for the inclusion of this species of undoubted 
occurrence. 


[ Auk 


266 Proposed Changes in the A. O. U. Check-List. April 


FOURTH ANNUAL LIST OF PROPOSED CHANGES IN 
THE A. O. U. CHECK LIST OF NORTH AMERICAN 
BIRDS. 


BY HARRY C. OBERHOLSER. 


Tuis is the Fourth Annual List of proposed A. O. U. Check-List 
additions and changes in the names of North American birds. 


Like the First, Second, and Third,! the present list comprises only | 


ornithological cases — 7. e., such as require specimens or the iden- 
tification of descriptions for their determination — and consists of 
additions, eliminations, rejections, and changes of names due to 
various causes. However, only changes known to be the result 
of revisionary work are included; therefore no mention is here 
made of changes involved in names in local lists or elsewhere, 
used without sufficient explanation or not known to be based on 
original research, of changes or additions queried or but tentatively 
made, or of the elimination of subspecies by authors who, on general 
principles, recognize no subspecies. 

This list is intended to include everything pertinent up to Decem- 
ber 31, 1918, and nothing after that date has been taken. In view 
of the volume and widely scattered character of current ornithologi- 
cal literature, it is not at all unlikely that some names or changes 
have been overlooked, and the writer would be very thankful for 
reference to any omissions, in order that such may be duly given 
a place in next year’s list. 


ADDITIONS 2 AND CHANGES IN NAMES. 


Gavia arctica (Linneus) becomes, so far as North American specimens 
are concerned, Gavia viridigularis Dwight, ‘The Auk,’ XXXV, 
No. 2, April, 1918, p. 198 (Gichega, northeastern Siberia). (Cf. 
Dwight, ‘The Auk,’ XXXV, No. 2, April, 1918, pp. 196-199.) 

Gavia pacifica (Lawrence) becomes Gavia arctica pacifica (Lawrence). 
(Cf. Dwight, ‘The Auk,’ XX XV, No. 2, April, 1918, pp. 198-199.) 


1 For the three previous lists see, “The Auk,’ X XXIII, October, 1916, pp. 425-431> 
XXXIV, April, 1917, pp. 198-205; XX XV, April, 1918, pp. 200-217. 

2 Additions to the A. O. U. Check-List, the Sixteenth Supplement, and the First, Second, 
and Third Annual Lists, are marked with a dagger (fT). 


oa | Proposed Changes in the A. O. U. Check-List. 267 


jLarus hyperboreus barrovianus Ridgway. Larus barrovianus Ridg- 
way, ‘ The Auk,’ III, No. 3, July, 1886, p. 330 (Point Barrow, Alaska). 
Reinstated as a subspecies. (Cf. Oberholser, ‘The Auk,’ XXXV, 
No. 4, Oct., 1918, p. 472.) Range: northwestern North America, 
south in winter to California. 

Thalassogeron Ridgway becomes Thalassarche Reichenbach (Naturl. 
Syst. Vogel, 1852, p. V), because not considered generically separable. 
(Cf. Loomis, Proc. Calif. Acad. Sci., ser. 4, II, pt. II, No. 12, April 22, 
1918, p. 44.) 

Thalassogeron chrysostomus culminatus (Gould) becomes Thalas- 
sarche culminata culminata (Gould), because Diomedea chryso- 
stoma Forster is considered not with certainty identifiable. (Cf. 
Loomis, Proc. Calif. Acad. Sci., ser. 4, II, pt. II, No. 12, April 22, 1918, 
p. 85.) 

Fulmarus rodgersi Cassin becomes Fulmarus glacialis rodgersii 
Cassin, because not specifically distinct from Fulmarus glacialis. 
(Cf. Loomis, Proc. Calif. Acad. Sci., ser. 4, II, pt. II, No. 12, April 
22, 1918, pp. 88-90.) 

Thyellodroma cuneata (Salvin) becomes Thyellodroma chloro- 
rhyncha (Lesson) (Puffinus chlororhynchus Lesson, Traité d’Ornith., 
1831, p. 613, no locality), because it is only a light color phase of the 
latter. (Cf. Loomis, Proc. Calif. Acad. Sci., ser. 4, II, pt. II, No. 12, 
April 22, 1918, pp. 141-145.) 

{Priofinus Hombron and Jacquinot. Recognized as a genus. (Cf. 
Loomis, Proc. Calif. Acad. Sci., ser. 4, II, pt. II, No. 12, April 22, 1918, 
pp. 59, 108.) The only species therefore should be called 

Priofinus cinereus (Gmelin). 

jPterodroma gularis (Peale). Procellaria gularis Peale, U. S. Explor. 
Exped., VIII, 1848, p. 299 (Atlantic Ocean, lat. 68° S., long. 95° W.). 
Recorded from Alaska. (Cf. Bent, ‘The Auk,’ XXXV, No. 2, 
April, 1918, p. 221.) 

strelata gularis Peale becomes Pterodroma inexpectata (Forster) 
(Procellaria inexpectata Forster, Descript. Anim., 1844, p. 204, Ant- 
arctic Ocean), because the latter is identical and of earlier date. 
(Cf. Loomis, Proc. Calif. Acad. Sci., ser. 4, II, pt. II, No. 12, April 22, 
1918, pp. 104-105.) 

Pelecanus californicus Ridgway becomes Pelecanus occidentalis 
californicus Ridgway. (Cf. Oberholser, ‘The Auk,’ XX XV, No. 1, 
Jan., 1918, p. 62.) 

Aristonetta Baird, Rep. Expl. & Surv. R. R. Pac., IX, 1858, p. 793 (type, 
Anas valisineria Wilson). Raised to generic rank. (Cf. Oberholser, 
Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash., XXXI, June 29, 1918, p. 98.) The only 
species therefore becomes 

Aristonetta valisineria (Wilson). 


t+ See previous footnote on page 266. 


268 Proposed Changes in the A. O. U. Check-List. ens 


Creciscus coturniculus (Ridgway) becomes Creciscus jamaicensis 
coturniculus (Ridgway). (Cf. Oberholser, ‘The Auk,’ XXXV, 
No. 1, Jan., 1918, p. 63.) 

yNumenius americanus occidentalis Woodhouse. Numineus occi- 
dentalis Woodhouse, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila., 1852, p. 194 (near 
Albuquerque, New Mexico). Revived as a subspecies. (Cf. Ober- 
holser, ‘The Auk,’ XXXV, No. 2, April, 1918, p. 191.) Range: 
southwestern Canada and the northwestern United States, south in 
winter to Mexico and Jamaica. 

Ectopistes migratorius (Linnzus) becomes Ectopistes canadensis 
(Linneeus) (Columba canadensis Linneus, Syst. Nat., ed. 12, I, 1766, 
p. 284, Canada), because the latter has been identified as the same 
species, and has anteriority. (Cf. Oberholser, Science, N. S8., XLVIII, 
No. 1244, Nov. 1, 1918, p. 445.) 

Polyborus cheriway (Jacquin) becomes Polyborus cheriway auduboni 
Cassin (Polyborus auduboni Cassin, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila., 1865, 
p. 2; Florida), because the North American bird is subspecifically 
distinct. (Cf. Bangs and Noble, ‘The Auk,’ XXXV, No. 4, Oct., 
1918, p. 443.) 

Streptoceryle Bonaparte becomes Megaceryle Kaup, because not re- 
garded as generically distinct. (Megaceryle Kaup, Verh. Naturhist. 
Vereins Hessen, II, 1848, p. 68; type, Alcedo guttatus Vigors = Alcedo 
lugubris Temminck). (Cf. Miller, ‘The Auk,’ XXXV, No. 3, July, 
1918, p. 352.) 

+Cyanolemus clemencize bessophilus Oberholser. New subspecies. 
Oberholser, Condor, XX, No. 5, Sept. 27, 1918, p. 181 (Fly Park, 
Chiricahua Mts., Arizona). Range: southwestern border of United 
States to northern Mexico; in winter to southeastern Mexico. 

Empidonax traillii traillii (Audubon) becomes Empidonax traillii 
brewsteri Oberholser, Ohio Journ. Sci., XVIII, No. 3, January, 1918, 
(published, Feb. 8, 1918), p. 93 (Cloverdale, Nye Co., Nevada). (Cf. 
Oberholser, Ohio Journ. Sci., XVIII, No. 3, Jan., 1918, pp. 93-98.) 

Empidonax traillii alnorum Brewster becomes Empidonax traillii 
traillii (Audubon). (Cf. Oberholser, Ohio Journ. Sci., XVIII, No. 3, 
January, 1918 [published, Feb. 8, 1918], pp. 85-92.) 

+Otocoris alpestris enertera Oberholser, Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash., XX, © 
March 27, 1907, p. 41 (Llano de Yrais, Lower California, Mexico). 
Revived as a subspecies. (Cf. Oberholser, Bird-Lore, XX, No. 5, 
pp. 346-347.) Range: central and southern Lower California. 

tOtocoris alpestris ammophila Oberholser, Proc. U. 8. Nat. Mus., 
XXIV, June 9, 1902, pp. 806, 849 (Coso Valley, southeastern Cali- 
fornia). Revived as a subspecies. (Cf. Oberholser, Bird-Lore, XX, 
No. 5, Oct. 1, 1918, pp. 346-347.) Range: Mojave Desert to Owens 
Valley, southern California. 

+Otocoris alpestris leucansiptila Oberholser, Proc. U. 8. Nat. Mus., 
XXIV, June 9, 1902, pp. 806, 864 (Yuma, Arizona). Revived as a 


ae NT Proposed Changes in the A. O. U. Check-List. 269 


subspecies. (Cf. Oberholser, Bird-Lore, XX, No. 5, Oct. 1, 1918, 
pp. 346-347.) Range: western edge of Arizona, southeastern border 
of California, southern Nevada, and northeastern Lower California. 

+Otocoris alpestris aphrasta Oberholser, Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus., XXIV, 
June 9, 1902, pp. 806, 860 (Casas Grandes, Chihuahua, Mexico). 
Revived as a subspecies. (Cf. Oberholser, Bird-Lore, XX, No. 5, 
Oct. 1, 1918, pp. 346-347.) Range: central northern Mexico, north 
to southeastern Arizona and southwestern New Mexico. 

+Otocoris alpestris enthymia Oberholser, Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus., XXIV, 
June 9, 1902, pp. 807, 817 (St. Louis, Saskatchewan, Canada). Re- 
vived as a subspecies. (Cf. Oberholser, Bird-Lore, XX, No. 5, Oct. 
1, 1918, pp. 345-346.) Range: Great Plains region from north- 
western Texas to Saskatchewan. 

tAphelocoma californica odcleptica Swarth. New subspecies. 
Swarth, Univ. Calif. Publ. Zool., XVII, No. 18, Feb. 23, 1918, p. 413 
(Nicasio, Calif.). Range: coast region of northern California. 

{Sieberocitta Coues, Key to North Amer. Birds, 5th ed., I, 1903, pp. 497, 
499 (type, Cyanocitta ultramarina var. arizone Ridgway). Recog- 
nized as a subgenus. (Cf. Swarth, Univ. Calif. Pub. Zool., XVII, 
No. 13, Feb. 23, 1918, pp. 406-407.) Includes the following North 
American forms: 

Aphelocoma sieberi arizonze (Ridgway). 
Aphelocoma sieberi couchii (Baird). 

{Corvus corax europhilus Oberholser. New subspecies. Oberholser, 
Ohio Journ. Sci., XVIII, No. 6, April, 1918 (published, May 6, 1918), 
p. 215 (Ardell, Alabama). Range: eastern United States and south- 
eastern Canada. 

ftAgelaius phoeeniceus arctolegus Oberholser, ‘The Auk,’ XXIV, No. 3, 
July, 1907, p. 332 (Fort Simpson, Mackenzie, Canada). Reinstated 
as a subspecies. (Cf. Oberholser, ‘The Auk,’ XXXV, No. 1, Jan., 
1918, p. 64.) Range: middle Canada and central northern United 
States, wintering in the southeastern United States. 

fIcterus icterus (Linneus). Oriolus icterus Linnzeus, Syst. Nat., ed. 12, 
I, 1766, p. 161 (warmer parts of America). Recorded from a speci- 
men taken at Santa Barbara, Calif. (Cf. Bowles, ‘ The Auk,’ XXVIII, 
No. 3, July, 1911, pp. 368-369.) 

Quiscalus quiscula quiscula (Linnzus) becomes Quiscalus quiscula 
versicolor Vieillot (Quiscalus versicolor Vieillot, Nouv. Dict. d’ Hist. 
Nat., XXVIII, 1819, p. 488, North America), because Quiscalus 
quiscula quiscula is applicable only to Quiscalus quiscula agleus Baird. 
(Cf. Wayne, ‘ The Auk,’ XXXV, No. 4, Oct., 1918, p. 440.) 

Quiscalus quiscula agleus Baird becomes Quiscalus quiscula quis- 
cula (Linnzus) because the latter is based on the same bird. (Cf. 
Wayne, ‘ The Auk,’ XXXV, No. 4, Oct., 1918, p. 440.) 

TPasserculus sandwichensis bradburyi Figgins. New subspecies. 


270 Proposed Changes in the A. O. U. Check-list. Lack 


Figgins, Proc. Colorado Mus. Nat. Hist., April, 1918, p. 2 (James 
Island, South Carolina). 

tNemospiza henslowii susurrans (Brewster). New subspecies. Pas- 
serherbulus henslowi susurrans Brewster, Proc. New Engl. Zoél. Club, 
VI, Feb. 6, 1918, p. 78 (Falls Church, Va.). Range: United States 
east of ae Allegheny Mountains. 

Junco oreganus shufeldti Coale becomes Junco oreganus couesi 
Dwight (Junco oreganus couesi Dwight, Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., 
XXXVITI, June 1, 1918, p. 291; Okanagan, British Columbia), because 
Junco oreganus shufeldti Coale is regarded as a synonym of Junco 
oreganus oreganus (Townsend). (Cf. Dwight, Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. 
Hist., XX XVIII, June 1, 1918, pp. 289-295.) 

Junco oreganus mearnsi Ridgway ee Junco mearnsi mearnsi 
Ridgway, because a distinct species. (Cf. Dwight, Bull. Amer. Mus. 
Nat. Hist., XX XVIII, June 1, 1918, pp. 296-298.) 


Junco oreganus townsendi Anthony becomes Junco mearnsi town- 


sendi Anthony, because regarded a subspecies of Junco mearnsi 
instead of Junco oreganus. (Cf. Dwight, Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. 
Hist., XX XVIII, June 1, 1918, pp. 296-297.) 

Junco insularis Ridgway becomes Junco mearnsi insularis Ridgway, 
because regarded as a subspecies. (Cf. Dwight, Bull. Amer. Mus. 
Nat. Hist., XX XVIII, June 1, 1918, pp. 296-297.) 

{Passerella iliaca canescens Swarth. New subspecies. Swarth, Proc. 
Biol. Soc. Wash., XX XI, Dec. 30, 1918, p. 163 (Wyman Creek, White 
Mts., Inyo Co., Calif.). Range: White Mountains, California, south 
in winter to southern California. 

}Passerella iliaca fulva Swarth. New subspecies. Swarth, Proc. Biol. 
Soc. Wash., XXXI, Dec. 30, 1918, p. 162 (Warner Mts., Calif.). 
Range: Warner Mountains, California. 

{Passerella iliaca maripose Swarth. New subspecies. Swarth, Proc. 
Biol. Soc. Wash., XXXI, Dec. 30, 1918, p. 161 (near Chinquapin, 
Yosemite Park, Calif.). Range: central and northern Sierra Nevada, 
California; south in winter to southwestern California. 

}Passerella iliaca brevicauda Mailliard. New subspecies. Mailliard, 
Condor, XX, No. 4, July 22, 1918, p. 139 (one-half mile south of South 
Yolla Bolly Mountain, Trinity Co., Calif.). Range: Yolla Bolly 
Mountains, California; south in winter to southern California. 

_ fLanius ludovicianus nelsoni Oberholser. New subspecies. Ober- 
holser, Condor, XX, No. 6, December 12, 1918, p. 209 (Todos Santos, 
Lower Calif., Mexico). Range: southern two-thirds of Lower Cali- 
fornia, including adjacent islands. 

{Dendroica estiva amnicola Batchelder. New subspecies. Batchel- 
der, Proc. New Engl. Zoél. Club, VI, Feb. 6, 1918, p. 82 (Curslet, 
Newfoundland). Range: Newfoundland. 

tDendroica virens waynei Bangs. New subspecies. Bangs, Proce. 


Vol. XXXVI] Proposed Changes in the A. O. U. Check-list. 271 


New Engl. Zool. Club, VI, Oct. 31, 1918, p. 94 (near Mount Pleasant, 
South Carolina). Range: eastern South Carolina. 

jSeiurus aurocapillus furvior Batchelder. New subspecies. Batchel- 
der, Proc. New Engl. Zoél. Club, VI, Feb. 6, 1918, p. 81 (Deer Pond, 
Newfoundland). Range: Newfoundland. 

{Toxostoma redivivum helvum Thayer and Bangs. Toxostoma_ re- 
diviva helva Thayer and Bangs, Proc. New Engl. Zo6l. Club, IV, April 
30, 1907, p. 17 (Rosario, Lower Calif.). Revived as a subspecies. 
(Cf. Oberholser, ‘The Auk,’ XX XV, No. 1, Jan., 1918, p.60.) Range: 
northwestern Lower California. 

{Sitta carolinensis tenuissima Grinnell. New subspecies. Grinnell, 
Condor, XX, No. 2, March 20, 1918, p. 88 (Hanaupah Canyon, 
Panamint Mts., Inyo Co., Calif.). Range: Panamint Mountains 
and White Mountains, California. 


jtPenthestes gambeli abbreviatus Grinnell. New subspecies. Grin- 


nell, Univ. Calif. Publ. Zool., XVII, No. 17, May 4, 1918, p. 510 
(Horse Creek, Siskiyou Mts., Calif.). Range: central California to 
southern Oregon and northwestern Nevada. 

{Penthestes gambeli inyoensis Grinnell. New subspecies. Grinnell, 
Univ. Calif. Publ. Zool., XVII, No. 17, May 4, 1918, p. 509 (three 
miles east of Jackass Spring, Panamint Mts., Inyo Co., Calif.) Range: 
mountains of southeastern California, from Mono County to Inyo 
County. 

tHylocichla guttata polionota Grinnell. New subspecies. Grinnell, 
Condor, XX, No. 2, March 20, 1918, p. 89 (Wyman Creek, White 
Mts., Inyo Co., Calif.). Range: White Mountains, California. 


REJECTIONS AND ELIMINATIONS.! 


Gavia arctica (Linneus) vs. Gavia arctica suschkini Sarudny (cf. 
Hersey, ‘ The Auk,’ XXXIV, No. 3, July, 1917, pp. 289-290). Change 
of name rejected. (Cf. Dwight, ‘The Auk,’ XXXV, No. 2, April, 
1918, pp. 196-199.) 

*Fulmarus glacialis glupischa Stejneger = Fulmarus  glacialis 
rodgersii Cassin, because the latter is merely a color phase of the 
species. (Cf. Loomis, Proc. Calif. Acad. Sci., ser. 4, II, pt. II, No. 12, 
April 22, 1918, pp. 87-90.) 

*#strelata scalaris Brewster = Pterodroma inexpectata (lorster). 
(Cf. Loomis, Proc. Calif. Acad. Sci., ser. 4, II, pt. II, No. 12, April 22, 
1918, p. 106.) ‘ 

*Hstrelata fisheri Ridgway = Pterodroma inexpectata (Forster). 


1 Eliminations of forms already in the A. O. U. Check-List, the Sixteenth Supplement, 
the First, Second or Third Annual Lists, are designated by an asterisk (*). 
* See above footnote. 


242 Proposed Changes in the A. O. U. Check-list. esi 


(Cf. Loomis, Proc. Calif. Acad. Sci., ser. 4, II, pt. II, No. 12, April 22, 
1918, p. 106.) 

*Buteo platypterus iowensis Bailey = Buteo platypterus platypterus 
(Vieillot). (Cf. Oberholser, ‘The Auk,’ XXXV, No. 4, Oct., 1918, 
p. 478.) 

Thrasaetos harpyia (Linnzeus). The recent Colorado record (cf. Lowe, 
‘The Auk,’ XXXIV, No. 4, Oct., 1917, p. 454) proves to be a mis- 
identification of Haliwetus leucocephalus. (Cf. Lincoln, ‘The Auk,’ 
XXXV, No. 1, Jan., 1918, pp. 78-79.) 

Tyto alba pratincola (Bonaparte) vs. Tyto perlata pratincola (Bona- 
parte). Proposed change (cf. Ridgway, Bull. U. S. Nat. Mus., 
No. 50, pt. VI, 1914, pp. 601, 605) rejected. (Cf. Oberholser, ‘ The 
Auk,’ XXXV, No. 4, Oct., 1918, p. 464.) 

Streptoceryle alcyon caurina (Grinnell) vs. Streptoceryle alcyon 
(Linnzeus). Proposed elimination (cf. Taverner, Summary Rep, 
Geol. Surv. Dept. Mines Canada for 1916 [1917], p. 361) rejected. 
(Cf. Oberholser, ‘ The Auk,’ XX XV, No. 4, Oct., 1918, p. 463.) 


Aphelocoma californica woodhouseii (Baird) vs. Aphelocoma — 


woodhouseii (Baird). Proposed change to full species (cf. Swarth, 
Univ. Calif. Pub. Zool., XVII, No. 18, Feb. 23, 1918, pp. 406-408, 
416-418) rejected. Cf. Oberholser, Science, N. 8., XLVIII, No. 1233, 
Aug. 16, 1918, pp. 165-167). 

Aphelocoma californica hypoleuca Ridgway vs. Aphelocoma 
hypoleuca Ridgway (cf. Swarth, Univ. Calif. Publ. Zool., XVII, 
No. 13, Feb. 23, 1918, pp. 420-421). Change rejected. (Cf. Ober- 
holser, ‘The Auk,’ XXXV, No. 4, Oct., 1918, p. 481.) 

Aphelocoma californica obscura Anthony vs. Aphelocoma cali- 
fornica californica (Vigors). (Cf. Swarth, Univ. Calif. Publ. Zool., 
XVII, No. 13, Feb. 23, 1918, p. 412.) Proposed elimination rejected. 
(Cf. Oberholser, ‘The Auk,’ XXXV, No. 4, Oct., 1918, p. 481.) 

Acanthis hornemanni exilipes (Coues) vs. Acanthis linaria exilipes 
(Coues). Proposed change (cf. Brooks, ‘The Auk,’ XXXIV, No. 1, 
Jan., 1917, p. 44) rejected. (Cf. Oberholser, ‘The Auk,’ XXXV, 
No. 4, Oct., 1918, pp. 466-467.) 

Spizella monticola (Gmelin) vs. Spizella canadensis (Boddaert). 
Proposed change of name (cf. Mathews and Iredale, Austral Avian 
Record, III, No. 2, Nov. 19, 1915, p. 41) rejected because Spizella 
canadensis (Boddaert) (Fringilla canadensis Boddaert, Tabl. Planch. 
Enlum., 783, p. 13) is a synonym of Zonotrichia leucophrys. (Cf. 
Oberholser, Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash., XX XI, June 29, 1918, p. 98.) 

*Junco oreganus montanus Ridgway. Regarded as a hybrid between 
Junco oreganus and Junco mearnsi. (Cf. Dwight, Bull. Amer. Mus. 
Nat. Hist., XX XVIII, June 1, 1918, p. 295; 297-298.) 

*Junco oreganus annectens Baird. Regarded as a hybrid between 
Junco mearnsi and Junco caniceps. (Cf. Dwight, Bull. Amer. Mus. 
Nat. Hist., XX XVIII, June 1, 1918, p. 298.) 


Gon | Cory, New South American Birds. 273 


*Junco phzonotus dorsalis Henry. Regarded as a hybrid between 
Junco caniceps and Junco pheonotus. (Cf. Dwight, Bull. Amer. Mus. 
Nat. Hist., XX XVIII, June 1, 1918, pp. 299-300.) 

Dendroica coronata hooveri McGregor vs. Dendroica coronata 
coronata (Linnzus). Proposed elimination as a subspecies (ef. 
Riley, Canadian Alpine Journal, Special Number, 1912 [February 17, 
1913] pp. 70-71) rejected. (Cf. Oberholser, ‘The Auk,’ XXXV, 
No. 4, Oct., 1918, pp. 465-466. 

Certhia familiaris americana Bonaparte vs. Certhia brachydactyla 
americana Bonaparte. Change of status (cf. Hellmayr, Genera 
Avium, XV, 1911, p. 8) rejected. (Cf. Oberholser, ‘The Auk,’ 
XXXV, No. 4, Oct., 1918, pp. 464-465.) 

Penthestes carolinensis (Audubon) vs. Penthestes atricapillus 
carolinensis (Audubon). Proposed change (cf. Hellmayr, Genera 
Avium, XVIII, 1911, p. 34) rejected. (Cf. Oberholser, ‘The Auk,’ 
XXXV, No. 4, Oct., 1918, p. 465.) 


NEW FORMS OF SOUTH AMERICAN BIRDS AND PRO- 
POSED NEW SUBGENERA.! 


BY CHARLES B. CORY. 


Xenicopsoides subgenus nov. 


Characters.— Similar to Xenicopsis Cabanis, but with much less gradu- 
ated and relatively shorter tail (tail less than ¢ of wing), relatively shorter 
tarsus and plain under parts. (Type Anabazenops variegaticeps Sclater). 

This new subgenus includes the following:. Anabazenops varve- 
gaticeps Sclater; Anabaies temporalis Sclater; Philydor montanus 
Tschudi; Anabates striaticollis Sclater; NXenicopsis anxius Bangs 
and Philydor venezuelensis Hellmayr. 


Euphilydor subgenus nov. 


Characters.— Similar to Philydor Spix, but shape of bill different, the 
terminal half of under mandible (gonys) being decidedly elevated (nearly 
as in Xenicopsis) and the end of the culmen more curved. (Type Philydor 
lichtensteini Cabanis and Heine). 


1 The writer does not sympathize with the increasing tendency to elevate subgenera 
(which are often based largely on color characters) to genera, unless diagnostic structural 
characters are also indicated. A well-marked and useful subgenus may represent a 
questionable genus. 


274 Cory, New South American Birds. hou 


This group comprises the following forms: Philydor lichiensteint 
Cabanis and Heine; Anabates amaurotis Temminck and Anabates 
dumidiatus Pelzeln. 


Synallaxis frontalis juz subsp. nov. 


Type from Jua, near Iguatu, Ceara, Brazil. Adult male, No. 45618, 
Field Museum of Natural History. Collected by R. H. Becker, September 
2, 1913. 

Characters.— Similar to S. f. frontalis Pelzeln, but differs chiefly in the 
brighter and more cinnamon rufous coloration of the crown, wings and tail. 
The primaries have the outer webs bright cinnamon rufous nearly to the 
tips, quite different than in S. f. frontalis. 

Measurements.— Wing, 55; tail, 80 m. 


Synallaxis gujanensis huallage subsp. nov. 


Type from Lagunas, Lower Huallaga River, Peru. Adult male, No. 
50561, Field Museum of Natural History. Collected by M. P. Anderson, 
October 12, 1912. 

Characters.— Similar to S. gujanensis inornata Pelzeln from the Rio 
Madeira region, Brazil, but differs in having the upper parts and most of 
under parts (chest and sides) darker (less buffy brown and more grayish 
brown), and sides of head and sides of throat brownish gray (not pale 
buffy as in allied forms); coloration of wings and tail darker and more 
chestnut brown, wing averaging longer. 

Measurements.— Wing, 65; tail, 70; culmen, 14 mm. 


Synallaxis peruviana sp. nov. 


Type from Moyobamba, northern Peru. Female, No. 50564, Field 
Museum of Natural History. Collected by W. H. Osgood and M. P. 
Anderson, July 15, 1912. 

Characters.— Back and rump grayish olive brown, the feathers of the 
nape and upper back with narrow whitish shafts; crown feathers with 
tawny shaft streaks (giving a streaked appearance to the crown) most 
pronounced on the forehead; under parts tawny buff shading into olive 
buff on the belly and flanks; breast feathers with blackish streaks and dots; 
sides of the head streaked with tawny buff and blackish; remiges with 
outer webs and greater portion of inner webs rufous; terminal third of the 
inner webs blackish; tail chestnut rufous; under wing coverts bright 
ochraceous tawny. 

Measurements.— Wing, 64; tail, 55; culmen, 13 mm. 


in 


pee XVI) Cory, New South American Birds. 275 


Remarks.— This new form is apparently not very closely allied 
to any known species. It somewhat resembles S. stzctothorax from 
Ecuador and extreme northwestern Peru in size and in having 
the sides of the neck, and breast, streaked with blackish, but it is 
otherwise very different. 


Synallaxis semicinerea pallidiceps subsp. nov. 


Type from Serra Baturite, Ceara, N. E. Brazil. Adult male, No. 45627, 
Field Museum of Natural History. Collected by R. H. Becker, July 16, 
1913. 

Characters.— Similar to S. s. semicinerea (Reichenbach) from Bahia, 
but differs in having the general plumage decidedly paler; crown between 
drab gray and light drab becoming olive drab on the nape; back cinnamon 
rufous; wings and tail cinnamon rufous, but somewhat more distinctly 
rufous and slightly less cinnamon than the back; under parts like S. s. 
semicinerea, but more tinged with isabella color; flanks and under tail 
coverts more tinged with olive buff. 

Measurements.— Wing, 67; tail, 77; culmen, 14 mm. 


Synallaxis scutata neglecta subsp. nov. 


Type from Jua, near Iguatu, Ceara, Brazil. Adult female, No. 50562, 
Field Museum of Natural History. Collected by R. H. Becker, August 
28, 1913. 

Characters — Similar to S. s. scutata Sclater from Bahia, Goyaz and 
Matto Grosso (Chapada), but differs in having the rufous coloration very 
much paler (cinnamon rufous, not chestnut rufous as in scutata scutata); 
crown brownish gray, superciliary stripe behind whitish (not tawny buff); 
sides of throat, bordering the black patch, buffy white (not rufous buff); 
under parts much more whitish; wings and tail near cinnamon rufous. 

Measurements.— Wing, 54; tail, 68; bill, 13 mm. 


Pseudocolaptes boissoneautii oberholseri subsp. nov. 


Type from Quito, Ecuador. Adult male, No. 30945, United States 
National Museum, Washington, D. C. Collected by C. R. Buckalew. 
Characters.— Similar to P. b. boissoneautii (Lafresnaye) from Bogota, 
but differs in having the throat and ear tufts quite white and the ‘“‘scale” 
marking on the breast larger and more pronounced; belly and flanks more 
olive rusty; tail darker and more brownish chestnut rufous. 
Measurements.— Wing, 107; tail, 99; bill, 20 mm. 


Remarks.— An immature specimen from Nanegal, Ecuador, in 
the collection of the Museum of Comparative Zodlogy has the 


276 General Notes. hes 


whole top of the head blackish and the belly and flanks bright 
rusty rufous. A specimen labelled Guayaquil (locality probably 
not correct) in the U. S. National Museum, agrees fairly well with 
the type, but has the sides of the belly and flanks more olive rufous. 
I have dedicated this new form to Dr. Harry C. Oberholser. 


GENERAL NOTES. 


Procellariidze versus Hydrobatidze.— The discovery that the generic 
name Procellaria Linneus belongs to the group commonly called Maja- 
queus Reichenbach (cf. Mathews, Novit. Zool., XVII, December, 1910, 
p. 497) makes necessary a change in the family name Procellariide. On 
account of the adoption of Thalassidroma Vigors for Procellaria auct. nec 
Linneus, the family name Thalassidromide has been used (Committee of 
Brit. Ornith. Union, List Brit. Birds, ed. 2, 1915, p. 281). Since, however, 
the generic name Thalassidroma has been properly retired in favor of 
Hydrobates Boie, the family name Thalassidromide must accordingly be 
altered to Hydrobatide, as has already been done by Mr. Mathews in his 
‘Birds of Australia,’ (Vol. 2, No. 1, May 30, 1912, p. 9)— Harry C. 
OBERHOLSER, Washington, D. C. 


Long-tailed Jaeger in Indiana.— A beautiful specimen of the Long- 
tailed Jaeger (Stercorarius longicaudus), taken at Millers, Ind., November 
30, 1918, was seen by me in a Chicago taxidermist’s shop. Knowing 
of only three previous records of the bird’s appearance in the Chicago 
area, I purchased the bird and it is now in my collection. The first 
record was made by Mr. Stoddard of the Field Museum and the other 
two by Mr. Woodruff of the Chicago Academy of Sciences (Auk, Vol. 
35, p. 234) . Mr. Cory of the Field Museum kindly verified its identity 
and as this forms the fourth instance of the bird’s occurrence within 
our boundaries it should be of interest. It is in the immature plumage 
with the tail-feathers only partially developed— NatHan F. LEOPOLD 
Jr., Chicago, Ill. 


Larus canus brachyrhynchus in Wyoming.— A Wyoming specimen 
of Larus canus brachyrhynchus, a male in juvenal plumage, has for many 
years been in the collection of the Biological Survey, in the United States 
National Museum. It is No. 141395, U. 8S. Nat. Mus., and was taken 
on Lake Fork, a tributary of the Green River, at an altitude of 10,000 feet 
in the Wind River Mountains, Wyoming, on August 28, 1893, by Mr. 


- 


“a 


Vol. PST] General Notes. 207 


Vernon Bailey. It has already been recorded incidentally (Cooke, Bull. 
U. S. Dept. Agric., No. 292, October 25, 1915, p. 47), but owing to its 
importance it seems worthy of special notice in a place more accessible 
to ornithologists generally. It represents the easternmost record of Larus 
canus brachyrhynchus, and the only really interior occurrence of the species 
in the United States. For the change of the name of this bird from Larus 
brachyrhynchus to Larus canus brachyrhynchus see ‘The Auk,’ XXXVI, 
No. 1, January, 1919, p. 83.— Harry C. OBERHOLSER, Washington, D. C. 


Polysticta Eyton versus Stelleria Bonaparte.— Mr. G. M. Mathews 
has recently (Austral Avian Record, III, No. 5, December 28, 1917, p. 123) 
advocated the use of the generic name Stellaria Bonaparte for the species 
now known as Polysticta stelleri (Pallas). The term Stelleria is, of course, 
as he shows, not debarred from employment in zodlogy by the previous 
use of Stellaria in botany; but he has apparently overlooked the fact that 
Polysticta is not preoccupied, since Polysticte Smith (Illust. South Afr. 
Zobl.), June [or later], 1836, does not invalidate Polysticta Eyton (Catal. 
Brit. Birds), April, 1836, a fact to which Dr. C. W. Richmond long ago 
(Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash. XVI, September 30, 1903, p. 128) called attention. 
It is evident, therefore, that the name of Steller’s Eider should remain 
Polysticta stelleri (Pallas) — Harry C. OpprRHOLsER, Washington, D. C. 


Further Record of the European Widgeon at Madison, Wis.— 
On April 14, 1918, in the wide-water at the head of Lake Waubesa, four 
miles south of Madison, I was able to identify unmistakably a typical 
specimen of the European Widgeon (Mareca penelope) that was in the 
company of seventeen Baldpates (Mareca americana). The bird was 
drawn so close by my 40-power telescope that it covered one-third of the 
field and allowed close study. ; 

It may be of further interest to restate the substance of a note sub- 
mitted by Mr. A. W. Schorger to the January, 1918 issue of ‘The Auk’ 
in regard to the recent appearance of the European Widgeon in the vicinity 
of Madison. On April 22, 1917, a specimen was discovered by Mr. Schorger 
on the Hammersley Marsh in company with about thirty Baldpates and 
a few other ducks. It remained at least four days and was seen by me at 
close range on three occasions, the last being on the 26th. On the 28th 
Mr. George H. Jenkins observed a specimen, perhaps the same, among a 
flock of Baldpates on the Yahara Marshes ten miles distant.— WARNER 
Taytor, Madison, Wisconsin. 


A Late Record for Rallus elegans for Maine.— November 22, 1909, 
Mr. A. G. Dorr, Bucksport, Me., collected and sent me in the flesh a fine 
male specimen of the King Rail. It measured as follows: length, 16.30; 
wing, 6.75; tail, 2.10; tarsus, 2.34 and bill, 2.40 inches. It was marked 
above with brownish-black and olive-brown feather edging; light throat 
and rufous-cinnamon, breast and flanks fuscous, distinctly barred with 


278 General Notes. Rees 


white. It was in good physical condition and apparently well able to 
join the majority of its species in the South had it so chosen. 

Mr. Dorr considered this a rare bird for Maine, especially so in the fall. 
There are a number of fall and winter records for Massachusetts and Maine, 
but I consider the occurrence sufficiently unusual to be worth recording.— 
C. L. Puiuuirs, Taunton, Mass. 


The Proper Generic Name of the Ruff.— The generic name now used 
for the European Ruff is Machetes Cuvier (Regne Animal, I, 1817, p. 490; 
type by monotypy, Tringa pugnax Linneeus). This name has been pre- 
ferred over Pavoncella Leach (Syst. Cat. Indig. Mamm. and Birds Brit. 
Mus., 1816, p. 29), because the latter was supposed to be a nomen nudum, 
It was introduced by Leach, however, in combination with the specific 
term pugnax, which is, of course, readily identifiable and of undoubted 
application to the Ruff. The name is on exactly the same basis as Spatula 
Boie (Isis, X, 1822, col. 564) and several other names proposed by him and 
by other authors at various times. All these names have hitherto been 
accepted without question as entirely warranted by both the International 
and A. O. U. Codes of Nomenclature; and there is no more reason for 
rejecting Pavoncella than any of the other names. 

The name Pavoncella, however, will not become the generic name of 
the Ruff, as Dr. C. W. Richmond has already shown (Proc. U. 8. Nat. 
Mus., LIII, August 16, 1917, p. 581), and Mr. G. M. Mathews emphasized 
(Austral Avian Record, III, No. 5, Dec. 28, 1917, p. 117). There is an 
earlier name, Philomachus, proposed by an anonymous reviewer of Bech- 
stein’s Ornithologische Taschenbuch (Allgem. Lit.-Zeitung, 1804, Vol. II, 
No. 168, June 8, 1804, col. 542), the type of which is, by monotypy, Tringa 
pugnax Linneus. This name is proposed in a perfectly legitimate way 
with a diagnosis and citation of species, and is, of course, not to be rejected 
because anonymous. The name of the Ruff will, therefore, become Philo- 
machus pugnax (Linnzeus).— Harry C. OBERHOLSER, Washington, D. C. 


Heteractitis versus Heteroscelus— The generic name now in use for 
the Wandering Tattler is Heteractitis Stejneger This term was pro- 
posed as a substitute for Heleroscelus Baird,? because the latter was con- 
sidered invalid on account of the prior Heteroscelis Latreille, instituted in 
1829 for a genus of Coleoptera. According to our present rules of nomen- 
clature, however, Heteroscelis does not preoecupy Heteroscelus, since the 
two words differ not merely in grammatical termination, but have different 
classical endings. Mr. G. M. Mathews a few years ago called attention * 
to the desirability of using Heteroscelus, but other authors seem generally 


1‘The Auk,’ I, No. 3, July, 1884, p. 236. 

2 Rep. Expl. and Surv. R. R. Pac., IX, 1858, p. 734 (type by monotypy, Totanus brevipes 
Vieillot). 

3 Birds of Australia, [II, part 3, 1913, p. 206. 


Vol. | General Notes. 279 


to have overlooked the matter. In view of the facts in this case it will 
apparently now be necessary to reinstate Baird’s name Heteroscelus as 
as the generic designation of the Wandering Tattler. The two species of 
the genus will therefore stand as follows: 
Heteroscelus brevipes (Vieillot). 
Heteroscelus incanus (Gmelin). 
Harry C. OBerHousER, Washington, D. C. 


The Status of Charadrius rubricollis Gmelin.— A good service has 
been performed by Mr. G. M. Mathews in the identification of Chara- 
drius rubricollis Gmelin. Unfortunately, however, he neglects to employ 
this name for the species to which he has shown that it belongs (Birds 
of Australia, III, pt. 2, May 2, 1913, pp. 130-132). It was originally 
based by Gmelin (Syst. Nat., I, pt. 2, 1789, p. 687) on the ‘‘ Red-necked 
Plover” of Latham, from Adventure Bay, Tasmania. As Mr. Mathews 
has proved, Latham’s description (Syn. Birds, III, pt. 1, p. 212, No. 19) 
was taken from the Ellis drawings in the British Museum, and is found to 
fit the species currently called Charadrius cucullatus Vieillot, except for 
the statement that there is “‘ on each side of the neck a large square chest- 
nut spot, the size of a silver penny, almost meeting together at the back 
part,” and “a little mixture of white about the bastard wing,” which 
two characters evidently were taken by mistake from the drawing of 
Steganopus tricolor. This is, therefore, a case of two species confused 
under the same name; or of a species described with partly erroneous 
characters; or, in fact, of both, according to the point of view. If we 
consider only that the characters given have been taken from two species, 
the name Charadrius rubricollis must be used for one of the species involved 
if the name can be identified, and that it can, Mr. Mathews has shown. 
Such adoption is sanctioned by both the International and A. O. U. Codes 
of Nomenclature, and by common usage as well. The name, therefore, 
should apply to the species to which the greater or most pertinent part of 
the description refers, which in this case is, of course, Charadrius cucullatus. 
If, however, we take the view that it is erroneously described, neither 
current usage nor the commonly accepted codes of nomenclature allow its 
rejection because of indefinite or even erroneous characters, if the descrip- 
tion can be positively determined as pertaining to a certain species. Thus, 
in any case, we should call the species ordinarily known as Charadrius 
cucullatus Vieillot by the name Charadrius rubricollis Gmelin. Its two 
forms will, therefore, stand as Charadrius rubricollis rubricollis Gmelin 
and Charadrius rubricollis tregellasi Mathews.— Harry C. OBERHOLSER, 
Washington, D. C. 


A Self-tamed Rufied Grouse.— The following is an account of a 
tame Ruffed Grouse: the first statement is by Miss Torrey. In the spring 
of 1914, probably in April, as I was driving back and forth to the village 
to High School, I first noticed a rustling ‘in the leaves and bushes by the 


280 General Notes. Awa 


side of the road and watched until I found out that it was caused by a 
Partridge or Ruffed Grouse. After that I always let the horse walk past 
the spot, and the bird would walk under cover of the trees for about a 
hundred yards‘or more, but never would go any farther. I never tried to 
tame the bird, only keeping quiet as I liked to have it follow me. It seemed 
as if it was always watching for me night and morning. 

My father first noticed the Partridge in May, when he was plowing, 
which was on the opposite side of the road, quite a distance from where the 
bird followed me. As my father is fond of all animals he quickly made a 
pet of this one and, if I remember rightly, fed it. The bird would follow 
him while he was plowing but never went with him to the barn. 

I think this Partridge must have been left alone, as at that time there 
were no others about. I should say it was lonely and finding that I’ did 
not hurt it, it followed me, until it made friends with others. We never 
knew of anyone having a tame Partridge or being able to tame one before. 
The continuation of the account of this bird is by Miss Knight as follows: 
On returning to Deer Isle, Maine, my home town, to spend the summer 
of 1914, I heard the neighbors talking about a tame Partridge. They told 
me that Miss Torrey, as she drove through the woods during the latter 
part of the winter and early spring, had often seen a Partridge following 
the team. 

My own experience with the bird began a few days later when we went 
into the woods after strawberries. As we walked along the road a Partridge 
followed us closely, possibly three or four rods away, in the edge of the wood. 
We crossed the road and went into the woods on the other side and I forgot 
all about the bird until suddenly he flew out from under my very feet. 
When I came home the Partridge walked down the wood road, flew across 
the highway road, and followed me fifteen or twenty rods on the side on 
which I had first seen him. 

A few days after this, when father and I were driving to the village we 
saw the bird again following us for a few rods. 

Accidentally we discovered that we could call him at any time we wished 
by going to the section of wood which he frequented, and whistling. After 
we had whistled a few minutes he always appeared, never on the wing 
but walking, coming from various directions but always on the same side 
of the road, although later if we crossed the road he crossed also. As the 
summer passed he became more and more friendly, often hopping up into 
our laps. As he strutted around us he frequently made a soft cooing sound 
in his throat. He never liked to be caught and held, but would allow him- 
self to be petted. He would feed from our hands. He did not care for 
corn, but enjoyed berries, especially huckleberries. During the summer 
he shed out all his long tail feathers, as may be seen in some of the photo- 
graphs, and we kept several of these feathers as souvenirs. 

The bird seemed to have a fondness for the color blue, for he would 
hop up into the lap of anyone dressed in that color. One day I tested this 
several times as follows. I wore a blue skirt under a pink skirt. So long 


Pols ve General Notes. I8l 


as the pink skirt was prominent he would not come into my lap. As soon 
as I folded that back he came up onto the blue skirt. 

Throughout the summer we showed the bird to many of our friends. 
In the fall, father talked of taking him home; but I, thinking that he 
might be unhappy if confined, urged that he be left in his natural surround- 
ings. Late in the fall some workmen who did not know the story of the 
tame Partridge were driving through the woods and the bird flew on the 
horse’s back and then down into the road. One of the workmen seized 
a tool from his kit and threw it, striking the bird and killing him.”— 
firrn M. Torrey anp Martua G. Kniaut, Deer Isle, Maine. 


Unusual Contents of a Mourning Dove’s Nest.— On May 5, 1917 
while passing a clump of thorns, a Mourning Dove flushed from her nest 
therein, and was almost immediately followed by a young bird, nearly 
full grown and able to fly fairly well, which awkwardly alighted near by. As 
it was rainy and cold, and had been so for a week past, I would have passed 
on without further disturbing them had [ not noticed that another young 
bird remained in the nest and seemed to be very wet and apparently dead 
with head hanging over the rim. I determined to remove it, as the other 
bird might wish to return. 

‘The bush was very thorny and I had trouble in forcing my head and 
shoulders up through the tangle for the few feet necessary. I found that 
the bird was alive but very wet and weak as though the old bird had not 
been able to protect both young through such a long stretch of bad weather. 
My surprise came, however, when I discovered that the nest also contained 
three eggs, which, held to the light, seemed well along in incubation. 
They could not have been placed there by boys as the nest situation was 
such that had it been tampered with, broken twigs would have told the 
story, for I had to break and force -a passage through to the base of the 
tree as well as to break one for my head as I climbed upafewfeet. Return- 
ing on May 8 I found the nest deserted, the young bird dead and one of 
the eggs broken. I have heard before of sets of three of the Mourning 
Dove, but never heard of them being laid before the first brood had left 
the nest. 

This clump of thorn was on a river flat, several acres of which is thickly 
grown up with several varieties of haws, wild crab, and wild apples and is 
used by Robins, Cowbirds, Grackles and Mourning Doves as a roost. 
Some 2000 Robins use this roost, the males and non-breeders even resort- 
ing to it nightly during the nesting season. During the migrations and 
after the Blackbirds flock it is also used by about 1000 Bronzed Grackles 
and several hundred Cowbirds. The Mourning Doves use it not only as 
a roost, but also as a nesting place. Their numbers, however, are com- 
paratively small; probably not over 150 after the breeding season is over. 
About ten days after finding the nest described in this note, I made a 
survey of the thicket and found twenty-two occupied nests of the Mourning 
Dove,— and one of them contained three eggs— KE. A. Doo.urrrue, 
Painesville, Ohio. 


282 General Notes. Lack 


Mourning Dove wintering in Vermont.— I have never known of a 
Mourning Dove wintering in this state, but on January 8, 1919, one was 
taken alive in Shaftsbury, Vt. It died the following day but was mounted 
and is now in the collection of Henry Bradford, Bennington, Vt. 

Robins, Meadow Larks, and Sparrow Hawks are wintering in Benning- 
ton —a very unusual thing — due, I suppose, to the mildness of the 
winter and to the lack of snow.— Lucretius H. Ross, Bennington, Vt. 


Thrasaetos versus Harpia.— The generic name currently used for the 
Harpy Eagle is Thrasaetos Gray, because Harpyia Vieillot is preoccupied 
by Harpyia Uliger (Prod. Syst. Mamm. et Avium, 1811, pp. 118-119) fora 
mammal. Vieillot’s name, however, was first spelled Harpia (Analyse 
Nouv. Ornith. Elém., 1816, p. 24; type by monotypy, Vultur harpyja 
(Linneus), in which form, with one less syllable, it is according to the 
International Code of Nomenclature, not invalidated by Harpyia. 
Furthermore, the original spelling of the specific name of this species is 
harpyja ( Vultur harpyja Linneus, Syst. Nat., ed. 10, I, 1758, p. 86; Mex- 
ico); and the Harpy Eagle should, therefore, now stand as Harpia harpyja 
(Linnzeus). 

It may be worth while also to call attention to the fact that Swainson in 
1827 spelled this generic name Harpya (Philos. Mag., new ser. I, No. V, 
May, 1827, p. 366); and that the generic name Thrasaetos, commonly 
attributed to G. R. Gray, is merely a manuscript name of Gray’s, origi- 
nally published by Bonaparte (Thrasaetos Bonaparte, Proc. Zool. Soe. 
Lond., 1837 (June 14, 1838), p. 108 [ex G. R. Gray MS8.], type by mono- 
typy, Vultur harpyja Linneus)— Harry C. OBERHOLSER, Washington, 
DEG. 


The Status of the Generic Name Archibuteo.— The generic name 
Archibuteo Brehm has for long been in use for the Rough-legged Hawks. 
This name, proposed in 1828 by Brehm (Isis, X XI, No. 12, December, 1828, 
col. 1269), was based solely on the ‘‘ Rauchfussbussard ”’ and two nomina 
nuda, Archibuteo planiceps Brehm and Archibuteo alticeps Brehm; hence 
Falco lagopus Briinnich, to which from Brehm’s later publications all these 
evidently must be referred, has been commonly considered the type of 
Archibuteo. In the original description, however, aside from the two pure 
nomina nuda, only the vernacular name without citation of authority or 
anything else that would serve to identify it, is given. The generic term 
Archibuteo is, therefore, certainly a nomen nudum at this place, as is clearly 
indicated by the International Code of Nomenclature and current practice. 
The earliest tenable citation for Archibuteo is in 1831 (Brehm, Handb. 
Naturg. Vog. Deutschlands, 1831, p. 38), when Brehm gives as the two 
included species, Archibuteo planiceps Brehm and Archibuteo alticeps 
Brehm, here fully described, both of which are synonyms of Falco lagopus 
Briinnich. Meanwhile, however, two other names were introduced for the 
group — T'riorchis Kaup (Skizz. Entw.-Gesch. Natiirl. Syst. Eur. Thierw., 


Vol. ee | General Notes. 283 


1829, p. 84; type by monotypy, Falco lagopus Briinnich); and Butaetes 
Lesson (Traité d’Ornith., May 8, 1830, p. 83; type, by monotypy, Falco 
lagopus Gmelin). The first of these becomes, therefore, the tenable name 
for the Rough-legged Hawks, since it is not preoccupied by T'riorches 
Leach (Syst. Cat. Indig. Mamm. and Birds Brit. Mus., 1816, p. 10; type, 
by monotypy, Pandion flwialis Savigny = Falco haliaetus Linneus), for 
the latter must be regarded as a different word from a nomenclatural stand- 
point because of its different classical ending. By reason of this the two 
forms of the Rough-legged Hawk will stand as follows: 
Triorchis lagopus lagopus (Briinnich). 
Triorchis lagopus sanctijohannis (Gmelin). 
Harry C. OBERHOLSER, Washington, D.C. 


Harris’s Hawk (Parabuteo unicinctus harrisi) in Kansas.— A fine 
specimen of a female Harris’s Hawk was killed seven and one half miles 
southwest of Lawrence, Kansas, December 25, 1918, by Fred Hastie and 
is now in the skin collection of the University of Kansas Museum. 

So far as I know this Hawk has not been reported before from the state.— 
C. D. Bunker, Lawrence, Kansas. 


The Proper Name for the Texas Barred Owl.— Some time ago (‘ The 
Auk,’ XXV, No. 3, July, 1908, page 316) Mr. Outram Bangs renamed his 
Syrnium nebulosum helveolum (Proc. New Engl. Zodél. Club, I, March 31, 
1899, page 31) because, when transferred to the genus Strix, it was sup- 
posedly preoccupied by Strix helvola Lichtenstein (Verz. Samml. Saugeth. 
und Végeln Kaffernlande, 1842, page 11). Since, however, both helveola 
and helvola are classical Latin adjectives differing in the possession of an 
additional syllable, they are to be regarded as different words, and there- 
fore by neither the International Code of Nomenclature nor the A. O. U. 
Code would they conflict when employed in the same genus. It thus 
becomes necessary to return to the earlier name for the Texas Barred Owl, 
and it will consequently stand as Strix varia helveola (Bangs). — Harry C. 
OBERHOLSER, Washington, D. C. 


Concerning a Note of the Long-eared Owl (Asio wilsonianus).— 
I was interested in the note of Mr. G. Clyde Fisher in the last number of 
“The Auk,’ with similar heading to the above. I can furnish information 
which will help to verify the conclusions which Mr. Fisher reached as to 
the source of the sound he heard. On August 9, 1914, while camped near 
Red Eagle Lake, in the Glacier National Park, I heard a sound of some 
night bird, which was very similar to the sound described by Mr. Fisher, 
and for which I could give no better description than the phrase he uses, 
I tried to investigate the source of the sound, and soon found several owls. 
at least four being seen at once. It was moonlight at the time. The 
country consisted of a mountain meadow, dotted with clumps of fir trees, 
and the Owls were easily seen as they flew from one clump to another at 


284 General Notes. ee 


my approach. I followed, and soon got a good view of one silhouetted 
against the sky, as it sat in the top of afir. The bird was evidently watch- 
ing my approach, and its ear tufts could be plainly seen. From their posi- 
tion, rising from the center of the head, rather than the sides, as well as 
from the size of the bird, I felt sure that it was a Long-eared Owl. I 
believe that the birds were a family containing both adults and young, 
and that they had been attracted by the light of our camp fire. This is 
the third time that I have known these Owls to be attracted by the light 
of a camp fire in the mountains of Montana.— Areras A. SAUNDERS, 
Norwalk, Conn. 


The Short-eared Owl Breeding on Nantucket.— In ‘The Auk’ 
for January, 1919, Mr. Francis H. Allen, reporting the occurrence of the 
Short-eared Owl (Asio flammeus) at Nantucket in August, 1918, speaks 
of the somewhat doubtful status of this Owl as a breeding bird in Massa- 
chusetts, and quotes the opinion of Mr. George H. Mackay that at one 
time it doubtless bred quite regularly on Nantucket and more rarely on 
Muskeget Island. 

There is, I think, good reason to believe that this Owl has nested on 
Nantucket in recent years not less regularly than in the past. In the 
years 1908 to 1912 when, in the month of June, I explored the island intent 
on its plants, but always with a side eye to birds, the Short-eared Owl was 
frequently met with, this and the Marsh Hawk appearing to be the only 
raptorial birds of the island at that season. In 1912 it was more numerous 
than at any time before, or else chance made it so appear, and between 
June 27 and July 14 not less than twelve were observed. On June 10, 
1908, a nest containing two eges, evidently fresh, was found in Trot’s 
swamp on the western side of the island. The locality was a dryish open 
part of the swamp less than an acre in extent hemmed about on all sides by 
thickets that were in many places swampy and impassable. The nest, a 
slight structure of grasses and other light material, was set in a cluster of 
hay-scented fern ( Denntstedtia punctilobula) whose delicate fronds rising 
around the margin of the nest gave less protection than concealment and, 
indeed, little concealment from above, for down within the encircling ferns 
the eggs were in open view. At this spot the ground was slightly raised 
above the level of the swamp, and the unrestrained growth of this fern 
attested that here, even in a wet season, the soil must be free from satura- 
tion. The sitting bird left the nest at my near approach, when its mate 
almost immediately appeared, both birds ranging widely about well in 
the air at no time coming very near and, at intervals, almost pausing in 
their flight directly overhead. One or both birds continually repeated a 
weak and expressionless guttural note — as memory now recalls it. The 
eggs, measured at the nest and replaced, were 1.37 and 1.44 inches in length 
—small for the species according to published measurements. 

South of Nantucket the Short-eared Owl has not often been reported 
in its breeding season. There are several records of its having nested 


Vol. in | General Notes. 285 


along the New Jersey coast, even as far south as the Cape May region, 
but I do not know that it has ever been found breeding on Long Island. 
There would seem to be little doubt, however, that it has recently nested 
there at Long Beach. At that place, on May 25, 1917, I watched a pair 
of these owls, evidently, from the disparity in their size, a male and female, 
repeatedly attacking a single Crow. The birds were flying about over a 
tract of dunes and thickets flanking a salt marsh inaccessible to me across 
a broad creek. The Crow, perhaps to escape the Owls, perhaps intent on 
depredation of their nest, several times swept down to the ground about a 
certain spot, the Owls pursuing it or awaiting its return into the air when 
attack and counter-attack were renewed. The following year at the same 
place a pair were observed on February 22, attacking a Marsh Hawk, one 
was seen on April 12, a pair on May 17, and again a single one on August 9. 
— Eucene P. Bickne.ti, New York City. 


Early Occurrence of the Snowy Owl and the Pine Grosbeak in 
Monroe County, New York.— On November 3, 1918, while riding on a 
trolley car toward the lake, my attention was called by the motorman, to a 
large Snowy Owl ( Nyctea nyctea) which was sitting on the top of a wooden 
pole in a gravel bed and about 150 feet from the tracks. 

He also informed me that the bird had been in the same place while on a 
previous trip an hour and a half before. Later it was seen to fly into a 
nearby vineyard. ‘The locality was in the town of Irondequoit, a mile and 
a half from Lake Ontario. On the same afternoon at 3.30 o’clock, while 
walking along the border of the woods at Durand-Eastman Park, near the 
lake, I observed three Pine Grosbeaks (Pinicola enucleator leucura). 
There were two females and one male, they were feeding in some bushes 
close to the roadway and were very tame, allowing me to approach within 
ten feet of them, when they would fly into the nearby bushes. This is 
the earliest record that I can find of their occurrence in Monroe County.— 
Lucius H. Pauu, Rochester, N. Y. 


The Deep Plantar Tendons in the Puff-birds, Jacamars and their 
Allies.— One of the most distinct and peculiar types of the deep plantar 
tendons in birds is that known as the antiopelmous, characterizing certain 
zygodactyl groups such as the Woodpeckers, Toucans and their allies. 
In this arrangement of the simple flexor perforans digitorum runs to the 
third toe, while the trifurcate flexor longus hallucis supplies the first, second 
and fourth toes. The two tendons are connected by a vinculum which 
runs from the flexor longus to the flexor perforans. 

The nature of these tendons in the Puff-birds (Bucconide) and Jacamars 
(Galbulidz) is of special importance in determining the systematic position 
of these families. Both are commonly given as antiopelmous, perhaps on 
the sole authority of Garrod (ef. P. Z. 8., 1875, p. 345; also Sclater’s 
Monograph of the Jacamars and Puff-birds, p. XXVIII). The following 
species were examined by Garrod: Galbula rufoviridis, G. albirostris, and 


286 General Notes. Lack 


Urogalba paradisea of the Galbulide, and Monasa flavirostris, Malacoptila 
fusca and Bucco maculatus of the Buecconide. Of allied groups the follow- 
ing were determined: Ramphastos ariel (Ramphastide), Megalema asia- 
tica (Capitonide), Gecinus viridis and Tiga javanensis (Picide). 

Descriptions of the plantar tendons in other groups have so often proven 
erroneous that the verification of all such statements is desirable. This is 
my excuse for the present note which merely confirms the observations of 
Garrod; however the species, with one exception, and three of the genera 
are different and I am able to point out one or two minor variations. 

I have made careful dissections of specimens of Monasa grandior and 
Malacoptila inornata (Bucconide), Galbula melanogenia (Galbulide), 
Ramphastos ariel (Ramphastide), Chloronerpes yucatanensis, Dryobates 
villosus and Campephilus malherbii (Picide). The essential antiopelmous 
arrangement is the same in all, but several variations occur that are worthy 
of note. 

In Chloronerpes, Megalaima, Ramphastos, Malacoptila and probably 
Monasa, the distance between the first and second bifurcations of the 
flexor longus is much greater than in Dryobates and Galbula; in Campe- 
philus, on the other hand, the three slips spring from practically the same 
point. The position of the vinculum is somewhat variable. In Ramphas- 
tos, Megalema (Garrod), Dryobates, and Campephilus the vinculum leaves 
the flexor longus decidedly above the primary bifurcation of the latter; 
in Malacoptila, Galbula and Chloronerpes at the extreme lower end of the 
main tendon, just as it divides, while in Monasa (as recorded by Garrod 
also) it originates from the upper ends of the two branches. 

Stejneger states (on what authority I do not know) that the Honey 
Guides (Indicatoride) are antiopelmous. There is every reason to believe 
this statement correct and also to assume that the Wrynecks (Jyngide) 
and Piculets (Picumnide) have the same arrangement. 

This close agreement in the deep plantar tendons is, as remarked by Dr. 
Stejneger, strong evidence of the mutual relationships of the families pos- 
sessing this unique arrangement. As this character is not neutralized or 
overbalanced by any of equal or greater value we may regard these families 
as forming a natural group, an order or suborder, characterized essentially 
by their antiopelmous, zygodactyl feet. In other zygodactyl birds, the 
Parrots and Cuckoos, the tendons are of the wholly different desmopel- 
mous type, and moreover the ambiens muscle, absent in the antiopelmous 
group, is here present.— W. DrEW. MILurrR, American Museum of Natural 
History, New York City. 


~ 


The Status of the Genus Hypocentor Cabanis. — The genus Hypo- 
centor was originally instituted by Cabanis (Mus. Hein, I, 1851, p. 181) 
for three species of Buntings, Emberiza aureola Pallas, Emberiza fucata 
Pallas, and Emberiza rustica Pallas. Its type was soon afterward desig- 
nated by Gray (Cat. Gen. and Subgen. Birds Brit. Mus., 1855, p. 79) as 
Emberiza aureola Pallas. Modern authors have commonly synonymized 


a | General Notes. IST 


it with Emberiza Brisson, but an examination of its type and comparison 
with typical species of Emberiza shows that it is well differentiated as a 
generic group. It differs from Hmberiza Brisson (type, by tautonymy, 
Emberiza citrinella Linnzeus) as follows; bill slenderer, more compressed, 
more sharply pointed, thus less conical; basal two-thirds of culmen straight 
or even somewhat concave, instead of convex; maxillar and mandibular 
tomia vertically not so strongly concave, thus not giving the closed com- 
missure the somewhat open appearance that it has in typical species of 
Emberiza; palatal surface of maxilla lacking the peculiar rounded protu- 
berances of HEmberiza; mandible more rounded (less squarish) basally; 
gonys very long, its length much more than the height of the bill at base 
(instead of about equal to that dimension), and not strongly ascending, 
the gonydeal angle therefore not so prominent; tertials and tail much 
shorter. 

The species to be included in this genus are at least the three originally 
indicated by Cabanis, the last one of which is North American by reason 
of its accidental occurrence on Kiska Island in the Aleutian Islands, Alaska. 
These are: 

Hypocentor aureolus (Pallas). 
Hypocentor fucatus (Pallas). 
Hypocentor rusticus (Pallas). 
Harry C. OBEerHOLSER, Washington, D.C. 


A Correction Involving Some Juncos.— An error that may be 
explained as due to oversight, inadvertence, plain stupidity or all three 
combined, crept into my paper on the Juncos (Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist. 
XXXVIII, 1918, p. 296) and Mr. Todd has called my attention to it. 
In placing insularis under mearnsi as a race, I quite forgot that the former 
name has many years priority. Therefore the Pink-sided Juncos should 
stand as follows:— 

Junco insularis mearnsi 
Junco insularis insularis 
Junco insularis townsendi 
JONATHAN Dwiacut, M. D. New York City. 


An Additional Record of Ammodramus savannarum bimaculutus 
in Eastern Washington.— Although the breeding range of the Western 
Grasshopper Sparrow is stated by the Check List (A. O. U. Check-List 
of North American Birds, 1910, p. 257) to embrace “ Transition and 
Austral zones from southeastern British Columbia, northwestern Mon- 
tana, and southern Minnesota south to southern California and southern 
Texas,” it appears that only one actual record of occurrence in eastern 
Washington has been published to date. Dr. Lee R. Dice took two adult 
males in breeding plumage in a wheat field in the Touchet Valley, near 
Prescott, Walla Walla County, on June 16, 1908 (Auk, Vol. X XVII, 1910, 
peezili7,). 


288 General Notes. hes 


On May 29, 1918, a bird which 1 am practically certain was of this species 
was encountered in a grassy swale not far from Pullman, Whitman County. 
When first sighted it was perched on a grassy tussock near the bottom of 
the swale. When flushed it flew to a grass clump some distance up a gentle 
hill slope, disappearing from view in the usual slinking fashion. Too 
much reliance cannot, of course, be placed on this record, since the bird 
was not secured. 

On June 13 I noted the song of a Grasshopper Sparrow in a grain field 
near Six Mile Ranch, six miles south of Sprague, just over the line in 
Adams County. The bird was pursued for some time before it was finally 
taken. Its actions were as usually described, the bird characteristically 
dropping behind a grass tussock, ledge of earth or pile of brush, and then, 
with bill low, body in crouching position, and tail drooping, sneaking off 
through the grassy vegetation, refusing to flush until one was too close to 
shoot. 

The bird is now No. 262090, U. S. National Museum, Biological Survey 
Collection. It is a male in much worn plumage. 

These experiences. during the past field season indicate that the Grass- 
hopper Sparrow is probably more common in eastern Washington than 
has previously been supposed.— Water P. Taytor, Biological Survey, 
Washington, D. C. 


The Dickcissel in New Hampshire.— At Concord, New Hampshire, 
on October 13, 1918 I shot a male Dickcissel (Spiza americana) in immature 
plumage. It was alone at the moment, in birches at the edge of woods that 
bordered extensive fields of corn and stubble, the autumnal resort of 
sparrows of several kinds, which were then swarming there among the 
weeds. The only records of the bird from north and east of Massachusetts 
with which I am acquainted are as follows: 

Maine, September 29, 1884. C. W. Townsend (Auk, 1885, p. 106). 

Maine, October 10, 1888. A. H. Norton (Auk, 1893, p. 302). 

Nova Scotia, September 13, 1902. J. Dwight, Jr. (Auk, 1903, p. 440). 

Francis Beacu Waite, Concord, N. H. 


Early Nesting of the Loggerhead Shrike Lanius ludovicianus 
ludovicianus) at Savannah, Ga.—I am indebted to Mr. Gilbert R. 
Rossignol, of Savannah, Ga., for the privilege of announcing the taking 
by him on February 15, 1919, at Savannah, of a nest and five eggs of the 
Loggerhead Shrike. Mr. Rossignol first discovered the birds building the 
nest in a live oak tree, among a cluster of vertical shoots, on January 16. 
The eggs were all fresh and the nest was approximately twenty feet from 
the ground. 

In the vicinity of Charleston, S. C., the earliest dates upon which I 
have found eggs were on March 24, 1916, six eggs almost hatched, and 
March 13, 1917, five fresh eggs, both nests being found in the same live 
oak tree and doubtless belonging to the same pair of birds— Artuur T. 
Wayne, Mt. Pleasant, S. C. 


 - 


Vol. POX] General Notes. 289 


A Note on the Decrease of the Carolina Wren near Washington.— 
The winter of 1917-1918 in the vicinity of Washington, D. C., with its 
prolonged cold and unusual fall of snow, was a severe one for many birds, 
a fact that was manifested especially in the case of the Carolina Wren 
(Thryothorus l. ludovicianus). Near Washington Carolina Wrens increased 
steadily in numbers in the period extending from 1912 to 1917, and during 
the last two years of this time were common. Their abundance at Plum- 
mer’s Island, Maryland, was noticeable, and birds were seen or heard on 
practically every visit to that vicinity. Through December, 1917, and 
January, 1918 they remained in their usual numbers. February 1, during 
a visit made to Plummers’ Island immediately after a heavy snowfall I 
found that the snow in the woods where it had not been drifted was sixteen 
inches deep. Several Carolina Wrens were seen on this day. One was 
observed climbing up the trunk of a red birch, where the bird broke open 
the curling rolls of bark, in search for food, making a rattling, rustling noise 
audible for some distance. Another was clambering about the eaves of 
the cabin. Both of these feeding habits were more or less unusual. This 
heavy snow covered the ground for a considerable period after this and 
must have rendered food difficult to find. Immediately after February 1 
the Carolina Wrens in the area under consideration disappeared, and the 
supposition was that the greater part of them had perished. Only three 
of four pairs were known to remain in the region between the end of the 
carline at Cabin John’s Bridge and Plummer’s Island, while none were left 
on the island property. The same decrease in number among these birds 
was observed throughout the entire Washington region and when spring 
opened it was found that there were only scattered pairs in a few areas. 

In a former note (published in ‘The Condor,’ 1913, pp. 120-121) I have 
called attention to a similar occurrence in eastern Kansas, where other 
species of birds in addition to Carolina Wrens were concerned. These 
observations and others of a similar nature seem to show that the Carolina 
Wren is a bird that may be considered resident in the strictest sense of the 
word in regions where it is found. In many so-called resident species, 
though the species as a whole is represented at all seasons individuals are 
migratory and perform regular journeys each year. With the Carolina 
Wren however, this does not seem to be true, as adult individuals (in pairs) 
frequent certain restricted areas throughout the year without reference to 
season. The immature birds that have not yet become settled, wander 
somewhat during spring and fall, and individuals may occur at this time 
in cities or elsewhere outside of their normal haunts. These movements 
however, are irregular, and seem at most to be restricted to short distances 
when compared with the regular spring and fall movement found among 
other birds of recognized migratory habits. It is by these restricted move- 
ments that these Wrens extend their local range. 

At Plummer’s Island one of these wanderers visited the island and 
adjacent parts of the mainland on April 7 and worked restlessly about, 
singing loudly. No others were observed during the spring and summer 


290 General Notes. Rear 


months and the species did not occur again until December 8 when one 
was observed skulking in a brush pile below the cabin. One bird (presum- 
ably the same one) is still present on the island at present writing (January 
12, 1919). 

The instances given here are indications of the conditions limiting the 
range of the Carolina Wren, in one direction at least and show, too, how 
readily a species apparently common may be reduced or even exterminated 
in a given region in a very short period of time. In the case of the Carolina 
Wren the heavy blanket of snow covering the food supply would seem to be 
the direct cause of extermination rather than prolonged cold, as here at 
Washington these birds were able to survive a low temperature for a con- 
siderable period but were killed when deep snow covered the greater part 
of their normal feeding ground. It is to the comparatively few that are 


able to survive that we must look for the perpetuation of the species. 


The increase in numbers however, seems to be a slow process, as following 
their decrease in 1912, I found the species still comparatively rare near 
Lawrence, Kansas, in 1914, 1916 and as late as November, 1918.— 
ALEXANDER WETMORE, Biological Survey, Washington, D. C. 


The Affinities of Chamezthlypis.— As generic distinctions become 
more and more refined the need of a supergeneric group intermediate 
between the family or subfamily and the genus, corresponding approxi- 
mately to the former genus, becomes increasingly evident. 

In his great work on the ‘ Birds of North and Middle America’ Mr. 
Ridgway has supplied this want in many families. In the Warblers (Mnio- 
tiltidee) the grouping does not appear to be so successful as in most cases. 
Not only is the old genus Geothlypis broken up into three genera but these 
are distributed in as many supergeneric groups. Oporornis is banded with 
Dendroica and its allies in the Dendroice, while Chamethlypis is placed 
in the Icteriz. 

We cannot help feeling that this arrangement is artificial, and that 
too much importance has been placed on the length of the wing-tip (easily 
modified by habits and migration), and insufficient weight given to colora- 
tion, nesting and even song. 

Also, the distinctions are partially invalidated by exceptions. Thus 
the sections including Geothlypis and Chamethlypis are separated by differ- 
ences in the length of the tail and form of the bill; but Geothlypis nelson 
agrees with Chamethlypis in having the tail longer than the wing. Again 
the Geothlypex are separated from the Dendroicee by having the rictal 
bristles obsolete and the wing-tip shorter, but in Geothlypis equinoctialis 
and G. cucullata, at least, the rictal bristles are well-developed. 

The particular point of criticism is in regard to the affinities of Chame- 
thlypis which is distinguished from Geothlypis by its stouter bill, with 
strongly curved culmen, and its longer, graduated tail. 

Mr. Ridgway expresses the opinion that while “ this genus is very much 
like Geothlypis as to its general appearance’ it is ‘‘ quite distinct struc- 


eicis va General Notes. 291 


turally, in which respect it comes much nearer to [cteria.’”’ I have care- 
fully tabulated the structural differences between these three genera, 
and the result to my mind unquestionably indicates a nearer relationship 
of Chamethlypis with Geothlypis. 

Sharpe (Hand-List of Birds) while recognizing Chamethlypis, included 
in this genus two South American species of Geothlypis, G. cequinoctialis 
and G. auricularis. These two species and G. cucullata are intermediate 
between Chamethlypis and the typical species of Geothlypis in coloration 
and in the form of the bill and have well developed rictal bristles as in 
Chamethlypis. They do not, however, approach the latter genus in the 
length of the tail, as do certain Mexican species of Geothlypis, notably 
G. nelsoni. 

While in Nicaragua in the spring of 1917 I had the opportunity of hear- 
ing the song of the ‘Ground-chat’ on several occasions. It is a highly 
musical warble resembling that of Geothlypis semiflava bairdi but even 
superior; the songs of both these species much excel that of G. trichas. 
The song of Chamethlypis possesses nothing whatever of the eccentric 
qualities of the Yellow-breasted Chat’s vocal performance. 

In conclusion, the evidence of size, coloration, external structure and 
song, strongly indicate the near relationship of Chamethlypis with Geo- 
thlypis and the more remote affinity of the former with Icteria. The first 
two genera are, in fact, practically connected by intermediate species.— 
W. DEW. Miter, American Museum of Natural History, New York City. 


Blue-winged Warbler Feeding a Young Field Sparrow.— On June 
16, 1918, I was passing through a brushy area near Norwalk, Conn., when 
my attention was attracted by a Blue-winged Warbler ( Vermivora pinus) 
evidently much excited at my presence as though it had a nest or young 
in the vicinity. It carried a green caterpillar about with it, as though 
wishing to feed young, so I sat down to watch it. A Field Sparrow (Spi- 
zella pusilla) soon appeared and also manifested excitement at my presence. 
After some waiting the Blue-wing approached a certain point in the bushes 
so frequently, that I got suspicious and searched it, finding to my surprise 
a young Field Sparrow, evidently just out of the nest and unable to fly. 
I waited some time longer, hoping to find the young of the Blue-wing, and 
finally the latter got over its fear, and approached the young Field Sparrow, 
and fed it the caterpillar it had been carrying. The adult Field Sparrow 
remained near-by but would not go to the young bird. 

This incident seems rather surprising, but I believe it is explained by 
supposing that the two species nested near each other; that the young of 
the Blue-wing were destroyed by a natural enemy just as they were about 
to leave the nest; and that the adult Blue-wing, finding a young Field Spar- 
row of about the same age nearby, fed it, perhaps not realizing that it was 
not its own offspring, and in any event, satisfying its natural instinct to 
feed and care for young at that time— Armtras A. SaunprErs, Norwalk, 
Conn. 


292 General Notes. es 


The Blue-winged Warbler near Boston.— Walking in dry, scrubby 
woods in the town of Brookline, Mass., May 19, 1918, Dr. Charles W. Town- 
send and I found a Blue-winged Warbler ( Vermivora pinus) singing the 
typical song of the Golden-winged Warbler (V. chrysoptera). The bird 
had the bright-yellow throat, breast, belly, and crown and the black line 
through the eye, and we had no hesitation in pronouncing it a Blue-winged 
Warbler. As this species is regarded as extremely rare in Massachusetts 
(see note by Mr. Horace W. Wright, Auk, 1917, pp. 482, 483), the bird was 
afterwards visited by other observers, some of whom saw it to better advan- 
tage than we did and discovered that its wing-bars were yellow, not white 
as in typical examples of the species. Among these observers were Mr. 
Charles J. Maynard, Judge Charles F. Jenney, Dr. John B. Brainerd, Mr. 
Barron Brainerd, and Mr. Henry 8. Shaw. Mr. Maynard, who visited 
the locality June 15 in company with Judge Jenney and Mr. Shaw, wrote 
me under date of July 31, 1918: ‘‘ I saw the bird very distinctly a number 
of times and clearly saw that it had decidedly yellow wing-bands, not as 
yellow as those of the Golden-winged, yet decidedly yellow, and we heard 
no other song than the one indistinguishable from that of the Golden- 
wing. ...I was interested in trying to find whether the bird was mated, 
but we did not succeed in finding any mate.’’ None of the observers saw 
anything of a mate, and none heard any other song from the bird than the 
Golden-winged Warbler song. Illness in my family prevented my visit- 
ing the locality again until July 10, when the bird was not to be found, 
and the Golden-winged Warblers, two of which had been found there before 
had also stopped singing. 

Forms of the Blue-winged Warbler with yellow or yellowish wing-bars 
are not very rare in collections, and Dr. Louis B. Bishop, who has a large 
series of this species, makes particular mention of them in his paper on 
‘The Status of Helminthophila leucobronchialis and Helminthophila 
lawrencei’ in “The Auk,’ 1905, XXII, p. 21-24. In the light, however, of 
Dr. Walter Faxon’s discovery of the hybrid nature of Brewster’s Warbler it 
seems probable that these non-typical examples are really of mixed ancestry 
and possess a modicum of chrysoptera blood. This seems the more likely 
in the case of our Brookline bird because it sang the chrysoptera song, as 
do most, if not all, of the lewcobronchialis found in this region. Mr. William 
Brewster permits me to cite him in support of this theory, and Dr. Bishop 
writes me, ‘‘ I think it quite possible your bird had a ‘ lawrencei’ as a more 
or less remote ancestor, which means chrysoptera of course farther back, 
added to its predominant pinus blood.” 

Though our bird was found, as I have stated, in the town of Brookline, 
the cities of Boston and Newton also corner near by, and, as Judge Jenney 
has pointed out to me, it doubtless had in its daily range not only these 
three municipalities but also the three counties of Norfolk, Suffolk, and 
Middlesex to which they severally belong.— Francis H. ALLEN, West 
Roxbury, Mass. 


| 
{ 
[ 


ad General Notes. 293 


Nashville Warbler ( Vermivora ruficapilla) in New York in Winter.— 
This is not merely a winter record for New York City but for a backyard 
garden on Broadway. This bird was first seen by Mrs. Chubb on Decem- 
ber 16, 1918. It was feeding on aphids which were still very abundant 
on some brussels sprouts in a very small garden patch. 

Up to the present date, January 9, I have seen the bird frequently. 
Apparently it visits the garden daily where the aphids still survive the 
mild winter. The bird is in perfect flight and apparently normal in every 
way. It was also identified today by Mr. W. DeW. Miller—S. Harm- 
sTED CHuBB, New York City. 


Four Rare Birds in Sussex County, New Jersey.— in the fall of 
1918 the American Museum of Natural History received in the flesh a 
female Northern Pileated Woodpecker (Phlwotomus pileatus abieticola) 
shot in the Kittatinny Mountains, three miles southwest of Culver’s Gap, 
Sussex Co., New Jersey, on Oct. 12, and an adult female Golden Eagle 
(Aquila chrysaetos) killed in the same locality on November 23. 

On a visit to this region from October 19 to November 3, I was gratified 
to find that the Pileated Woodpecker still exists in the larger woodlands of 
Sussex County. Many characteristic examples of their work, both old 
and fresh, were found and several birds were seen. 

Through the kindness of Mr. Justus von Lengerke, I am able to record 
a Raven (Corvus corax eursphilus) also from the vicinity of Culver’s Gap. 
This bird, which was accompanied by another individual of the same 
species, was secured by this gentleman on September 21 and is now in his 
possession. 

Mr. von Lengerke tells me that the Goshawk (Astur atricapillus atricapil- 
lus) is a regular winter visitor in northwestern New Jersey, but usually 
rare. In the fall and winter of 1916-17 and again in 1917-18 there were, 
for the first time in his experience. large flights of the Goshawk two years 
in succession. In the former season Mr. von Lengerke, who makes special 
efforts to kill these destructive birds, secured about nine Goshawks; in 
the latter he personally killed sixteen (fifteen at Stag Lake, Sussex Co., and 
one about ten miles from this locality), and knows of two more shot in the 
same county. In the fall of 1918 he handled eight individuals, five of 
which were killed by himself and his son— W. DEW. Miter, American 
Museum of Natural History, New York City. 


Notes from a Connecticut Pine Swamp.— The pine swamp of which 
I write is situated in the township of Ledyard, Connecticut, two miles 
east of Gales Ferry and the Thames River, and about eight miles north of 
Fisher’s Island sound. It runs north and south for about half a mile, and 
is three hundred feet above sea level. In it grow tall white pines, though 
many which formerly grew along the edges of the swamp have been cut 
down. It is a wild place, containing the usual “ Bottomless Pit,’ the 
old time farmers, with their longest poles, being unable to find a bottom. 
Once upon a time, also, a wildcat inhabited it — so sayeth tradition! 


- | 


294 General Notes. jak 


The native Rhododendron (R. maximum) grows here in profusion attain- 
ing a height of twenty-five, or more, feet, and is a wonderful sight when 
in blossom in July. There is also much laurel and many hardwood trees 
on the edge of the swamp. On July 5, 1918, walking here among the Rho- 
dendrons, listening to the songs of the Hooded Warbler, I made a dis- 
covery. The Hooded Warbler is quite common in this locality and sings 
freely. I heard the two songs on this day — one of which seems to say 
“you ’re it, you’re it, you’re it, you ’re it yourself’ sung rapidly and 
varying in the number of “ you ’re its.” The other song seems to say 
‘* Nobody can touch me-é,”’ a rising inflection on the end. They made me 
think of children playing tag. Suddenly a strange distant song drew my 
attention and I hastened along listening intently — then as I stood on a 
rock surrounded by Rhododendrons out flew a beautiful Black-throated 
Blue Warbler, which alighted on a treeandsang. It flew about from tree to 
tree quite near and sang over and over again, and was answered by the 
same song from a more distant bird. The song was much finer than the 
books lead one to suppose. About six zees — the first three seeming to 
have a sort of double resonance and the last longer drawn out and higher. 
Of course the birds were nesting here, but although I visited the spot every 
few days and heard and saw the bird near the same locality, I could never 
locate the nest, in the wild tangle of growth. The last time that I heard 
the song was on August 1. In Dr. Bishop’s ‘ List of Connecticut Birds’ 
the Black-throated Blue is given as nesting at Eastford in 1874 and 1881, 
in Kent in 1905 and in Litchfield in 1905. Near this same place some 
Broad-winged Hawks were nesting and every time I visited the spot one 
of them would perch in a tall tree and whistle — a shrill penetrating whistle, 
although at times they could do it quite softly. They seemed to be unafraid 
and it was amusing to see one of them watching my dog as he ran among 
the bushes; it would stretch its neck and twist its head from side to side 
in a very funny way. For two years now the Solitary Vireo has nested 
in this vicinity and delighted us with its song all summer. 

Still another rarity has been found nesting in this swamp, the Canada 
Warbler. Dr. Graves found it there on June 25, 1884, and again thirteen 
years later on July 17, 1897; at this later date he saw and heard a number 
of them singing. Although looking for it here for the last ten years I have 
yet to find it nesting — Frances MINER Graves, New London, Conn. 


The Name “ erythrogaster.’’— | have been interested in the discus- 
sion about erythrogaster, erythrogastra, erythrogastris, ete. in recent numbers 
of ‘The Auk.’ From analogy, both in the Greek and Latin tongues, I 
make no question of this being an adjective. Thus in Latin, from longus 
and manus comes the adjective longimanus -a, -wm, long-handed. In Greek 
form (using the Roman alphabet) lewkos and lithos, leukolithos, -on. The 
older naturalists, as many botanists still do, printed specific names that 
are nouns With an initial capital, those that are adjectives with a lower-case 
initial. Linnaeus, for instance, who observed this distinction, wrote Anas 


Lee ad General Notes. 295 


erythropus, Hirundo fissipes, Fringilla erythrophthalma, Parus atricapillus, etc., 
showing that he rightly considered these specific names to be adjectives. 
From erythros and melas comes the adjective erythromelas, fem. erythro- 
melaena, neut. erythromelan, red and black. Now if Piranga is considered 
feminine, as it is (Piranga rubra), the Scarlet Tanager’s name is Piranga 
erythromelaena. ‘There is no escape from this except for those who refuse 
to make an adjectival specific name conform in gender to the generic 
name with which it is associated..— Warmer Faxon, Lexington, Mass. 


Constant Difference in Relative Proportions of Parts as a Specific 
Character.— In the oft-recurring discussions of what constitutes a species 
and the difference between subspecies and species, one interesting kind of 
intergradation which might be termed “ pseudo-intergradation ”’ had not 
been mentioned. 

This is well illustrated by certain of the Guadalupe Island forms, not- 
ably the Rock Wren (Salpinctes) which has at times been regarded as a 
species and again as a subspecies even by the same authority. 

The Guadalupe bird, together with its near ally of San Martin Island, 
differs from its relatives of other islands and the mainland in its longer 
bill, relatively shorter wing and darker coloration. The difference in 
proportions is constant so far as known; only exceptionally short-billed 
specimens agree in the length of this member with the longest billed indi- 
viduals of other forms, while only very long-winged examples fail to differ 
from short-winged birds of the related races. This, however, has been 
held to be intergradation and on these grounds the Guadalupe bird, S. 
guadeloupensis, was degraded to subspecific rank by Ridgway in 1904, even 
before the somewhat intermediate race S. g. prozimus was discovered. 

Individuals agreeing in the length of the bill, however, naturally exhibit 
the maximum difference in the length of the wing, while those agreeing in 
the wing can be distinguished by the length of the bill. In other words 
the ratio of bill to wing length in the two species S. obsoletus and S. guade- 
loupensis is constantly different and furnishes a diagnostic character by 
which the species may always be distinguished. In the former the wing is 
more than three and a half times the length of the bill, in the latter less than 
three and a half. Inaddition there is a well-marked difference in color. 

It seems reasonable to consider such differentiation in proportions when 
developed to the point where there is constant difference in ratio as of 
specific value. Measurements appear to indicate that this point has been 
reached in the Rock Wrens, and that the dark, long-billed forms should 
therefore be regarded as specifically distinct from the paler, shorter billed 
races. The same conclusion was arrived at by Swarth in 1914 (Condor, 
XVI, p. 216). 


1 It is interesting in this connection to note that Ridgway (Bird N. and Mid. Amer., 
Il, p. 101) rejects P. erythromelena Salv. 1868 because of P. erythromelas Vieill. 1819 
but does not alter the latter! — Ed. 


296 General Notes. hee 


The Guadalupe Junco (Junco insularis) easily fulfills the above require- 
ments of a species. Indeed as it averages 10 mm. less in length of wing 
than its nearest relative J. townsendi, and its bill is nearly 2 mm. longer, 
there is small likelihood even of ordinary intergradation. There are also 
well-defined color characters. 

In Dr. Dwight’s recent paper on the Juncos (Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. 
Hist., XX XVIII, 1918, p. 269) he has reduced this Junco as well as Junco 
townsendi to subspecies, on the grounds that their characters are quantita- 
tive rather than qualitative. But are their peculiarities merely quantitative, 
and do not the differences exhibited by these forms more nearly approach 
the characters commonly regarded as of generic value than do the “ quali- 
tative”’ color differences between the forms regarded by Dr. Dwight as 
species?-— W. DeW. Miter, American Museum of Natural History, 
New York City. 


“ Off ” Flavors of Wildfowl.— Following is an extract from a letter on 
this subject by Dr. L. C. Jones of Falmouth, Mass., who has been quoted 
in a previous article! on this subject. It will be noted that one of Dr. 
Jones’ theories is much the same as that advanced by the writer in the last 
sentence of his first communication on fishy flavor.’ 

“T would like to advance a new theory which I think may explain the 
cause In many cases. I refer to the possibility of “‘ fatigue toxins ”’ in 
the flesh of birds which have taken long flights and are thin or emaciated 
and obviously out of condition. The same might hold in those birds which 
have been shot previously but not wholly disabled. Many of these have 
intestines agglutinated with peritonitis, local abscesses, or suppurating 
wounds in the skin or muscles where shot has entered. Unpleasant as it 
may be to think of this, practically all of these birds reach the market and 
are undoubtedly eaten, chiefly of course by those who do not dress their 
own game. 

“The more you consider this explanation, the more points you will 
find to support it. For instance, | have eaten many ducks in the begin- 
ning of the season, Redheads, Bluebills and Black Ducks, birds which have 
just arrived from the north and I think without question that most of them 
have been comparatively unpalatable. Birds from the same flocks, shot 
a fortnight or so later, even when the diet has consisted almost entirely ot 
eelgrass seed from the salt water bays and estuaries, have been plump and 
delicious. May not fatigue with starvation, or rest with repletion, be the 
great determining factors in the flavor of migrating fowl? You may readily 
conceive that in certain instances of excessive fatigue or when the 
abdominal organs were badly infected, the flesh of such birds might be 
distinctly poisonous....’’ L. C. Jones, M. D— W. L. McAtss, U.S. 
Biological Survey, Washington, D. C. 


1 Auk, Vol. 36, No. 1, Jan., 1919, pp. 101-101. 
2 Auk, Vol. 35, No. 4, Oct., 1918, p. 476. 


rs ae | Recent Literature. 297 


RECENT LITERATURE. 


‘The Game Birds of California.’— One of the most notable of recent 
American bird books is the handsome work on ‘ The Game Birds of Cali- 
fornia’! by Grinnell, Bryant and Storer issued by the University of 
California, as one of its Semicentennial publications. The life histories 
of game birds have never been so well studied and written up as those of 
certain other species, because those who have had the best opportunities 
have been more interested in killing the birds than in studying them. We 
may search the columns of the sporting journals and while we find an 
abundance of information on how to shoot game birds, how they act in 
reference to the gunner, and what fine times the gunner had when shoot- 
ing them, there is a lamentable lack of careful observation on the life and 
habits of the birds. State Game Commissions are usually made up of 
hunters rather than of trained ornithologists and consequently their activ- 
ities are directed along the same lines and their publications are mainly of 
the same nature though there are notable exceptions. The supervision of 
the enforcement of the Migratory Bird Law and the succeeding Treaty with 
Canada, by a committee of the Biological Survey at Washington, has 
opened the eyes of the public to the importance of entrusting this sort of 
work to trained experts and the present volume is an example of a state 
game publication prepared by just such experts. We have had some 
similar publications by state or local authorities, notably Mr. E. H. For- 
bush’s admirable ‘ History of the Game Birds, Wild Fowl and Shore Birds 
of Massachusetts and Adjacent States,’ issued by the Massachusetts State 
Board of Agriculture, but they are few, and some State Boards unfortu- 
nately adopt an attitude of hostility to the Biological Survey and to 
scientific research, which is unfortunate and deplorable. 

The attitude of the University of California, through its Museum of 
Vertebrate Zodlogy, in turning to practical advantage the information 
accumulated through the researches of its trained experts is most com- 
mendable. We go to the universities for expert information on all sorts 
of subjects and why not go to their zodlogical departments or to the great 
museums for information on wild life and its preservation? 

Dr. Grinnell and his associates have had the advantage of Mr. Forbush 
inasmuch as they have been engaged in the personal study of game 
birds along with their other field work for many years, and consequently 
have accumulated a vast store of original information, while he was forced 
to compile a large part of his data in a very short period of time. Their 


1The Game Birds of California. Contributions from the University of California 
Museum of Vertebrate Zodlogy. By Joseph Grinnell, Harold Child Bryant and Tracy 
Irwin Storer. University of California Press, Berkeley, 1918. Large 8vo., pp. i-x + 
1-642, 16 colored plates and 94 text figures. Price cloth $6.00 net. 


298 Recent Literature. Lack 


report is therefore an advance over his and is undoubtedly the best work on 
game birds that has yet appeared in America. 

The preliminary chapters treat of the decrease of game, natural enemies 
of game, gun clubs, introduction of non-native game, game propagation 
and legislation. From these we learn that the serious decrease in game 
birds, especially the waterfowl, in California, was first noticed about 1880, 
since which time it has increased at an alarming rate. In the Fresno 
region in 1912 flocks of geese were still to be seen in certain sections but ten 
to twenty years earlier the whole San Joaquin Valley literally swarmed with 
wild geese during midwinter. “ From the windows of a moving train 
myriads of geese were to be observed, reaching as far as the eye could see 
on either side of the railroad from Fresno to Stockton — certainly a thous- 
and fold more geese than can be seen today along the same route.” The 
number of ducks sold in the markets of San Francisco according to careful 
estimates has decreased from 350,000 in 1911-12 to 125,000 in 1915-16. 
These are but a couple of illustrations from the many facts collected by 
the authors of this work. Their conclusions are set forth as follows: ‘‘ The 
causes of this decrease are many and diverse but all are due in last analysis 
to the settlement of the state by the white man. Some of these factors, 
such as excessive hunting and sale of game, are subject to control; but 
others such as reclamation of land, and overhead wires are inevitable. . . . 
The game supply of the future must rely upon correct inductions based 
upon careful study of the entire problem, and final adoption of those 
means which it is found feasible to employ.” 

What will be the eventual outcome of the game situation it is hard to fore- 
tell. Certainly in our Eastern States the outlook is not encouraging. With 
the constant decrease in wild land and the issuing of innumerable hunters’ 
licenses, 295,000 in Pennsylvania last year, the native-bred game will 
surely disappear — indeed even now Quail have to be imported and many 
states restocked. When the same conditions prevail in the states from 
which Quail are now obtainable the species will be practically extinct. 
And so with the game that comes to us from breeding grounds far to the 
north. When these grounds are all reclaimed the supply will end and in 
future we shall be dependent upon game propagated especially for libera- 
tion on the shooting grounds, as is the case in England. 

It is well worth while to have this matter placed before us in all its 
seriousness as has been done in the present volume, so that the public 
may realize with what sort of a problem they have to deal and see the 
necessity of securing expert advice. 

In speaking of gun clubs the authors give due credit to the importance 
of the preserves which they establish and the care that is taken to limit 
shooting days and stop illegal gunning on the grounds. At the same time 
they point out that the preserves prove so attractive to the birds that prac- 
tically all individuals normally scattered over large areas are congregated 
there, where they are exposed to regular slaughter by the most skilful shots 
and the ultimate destruction is probably hastened. As to the introduc- 


ae | Recent Literature. 299 


tion of non-native species the author’s verdict is strongly opposed to the 
practice. They rightly assert that the native species are better adapted 
to our country and it is our duty to use all our efforts toward their con- 
servation. 

The systematic account of the various species naturally occupies most 
of the text and is admirably done. Under each heading come paragraphs 
on: other names; description; marks for field identification; voice; nest; 
eggs; general distribution; and distribution in California. Then follows 
in larger type a general account of the habits and history of the species 
and its relative importance as a game bird. The birds included are the 
Geese, Ducks and Swan; Spoonbill and Ibises; Cranes, Rail, Gallinules 
and Coots; Shorebirds; Quail and Grouse; Pigeons and Doves, 108 
species in all. The technical nomenclature follows the A. O. U. ‘ Check- 
List ’ and so do the vernacular names except where they are not in accord 
with Californian usage. This is perfectly proper in a work of this kind 
especially as the other names are usually mentioned as well. It is rather 
amusing however to the eastern ornithologist to read of the Mud-hen 
“known in booklore as the Coot.’? The authors would find that along 
the Atlantic Coast “‘ Mud-hen”’ means the Clapper Rail while ‘ Coot ” 
is by no means a book name in the Eastern States. A little further infor- 
mation on this point might save some of their readers no little trouble, 
especially as they refer in one place to the ‘‘ Mud Hen in the east, meaning 
the Coot.”’ Twelve of the colored plates are by Fuertes and represent 
that artist at his best while four are by Major Allan Brooks. They form 
a valuable addition to the published portraits of American birds and add 
materially to the attractiveness of this well printed volume. 

This work will prove of great importance to many different classes of 
readers: the sportsman will learn more about the game birds of the state 
than can be found in any other volume and will find the important recog- 
nition characters of each species clearly set forth; the bird student, be he 
amateur or professional, will find it an invaluable work of reference and the 
conservationist will find in it the facts and suggestions for which he has 
been seeking. The bibliographies will also prove of the greatest help to 
those who wish to carry their studies farther and to consult the other works 
on the subject. 

It is encouraging to know that one of the authors of this work, Dr. 
Bryant, was called, before his task was completed, to fill an important 
position in the California Fish and Game Commission, and we wish that 
all the State Game Commissions might be induced to seek men of this type 
to carry on their activities — surely that is a most important point in game 
conservation.— W. 8. 


Mathews’ ‘ The Birds of Australia.’— Part IV of Vol. VII of Mr. 
Mathews’ great work ! brings us almost to the end of the Cuckoos, only a 


1The Birds of Australia. By Gregory M. Mathews. Vol. VII, Part IV, December 19, 
1918, pp. 321-384. 


300 Recent Literature. ree 


portion of the text of the Coucal remaining to be completed, so that the 
next part after considering the Lyre Bird will begin the Passeres. 

The present number treats of the genera Cacomantis, Vidgenia, Owenavis, 
Chalcites, Lamprococcyx, Eudynamis, Scythrops and Polophilus. The most 
interesting species among these is the giant ‘‘ Channel-bill,” Scythrops, 
which lays its eggs in the nests of Crows and Crow-Shrikes, birds of about 
its own size. It has a remarkably loud call and is often active at night, 
resembling in the latter particular our American Black-billed Cuckoo, 
while curiously enough its appearance is considered to indicate approach- 
ing storms and it is known as “ Stormbird ” and “ Rainbird ”’ just as our 
own Cuckoos are named “ Rain Crows.’ Further investigation of the 
origin of this belief would be well worth while for those interested in the 
“folk-lore ”’ of ornithology. There are eleven plates of the various species 
and one of the tails of Bronze Cuckoos, all by Grénvold, and among the 
best that have appeared. 

We notice one new genus, Vidgenta (p. 327), type Cuculus castaneiventris 
Gould, and one new race Cacomantis pyrrhophanus vidgeni (p. 326).—W. 8. 


De Fenis on Bird Song in its Relation to Music.— This paper! 
is one of the most important and carefully prepared contributions to the 
study of bird song that has recently appeared. M. de Fenis has considered 
his subject systematically, under various headings and the results of his 
investigations are summed up in his conclusion that ‘‘ The laws of musical 
development are the same for the music of man as for the song of birds,” 
which corresponds essentially with Mr. Henry Oldys’ views on the subject. 

The topics which are discussed in the paper are: song of birds in its rela- 
tion to habits and habitat; difficulties encountered in the notation of bird 
song; birds which repeat their song regularly; birds which vary their 
melody but preserve the same rhythm; birds which imitate; birds which 
improvise. 

Many musical and syllabic representations of songs are presented showing 
some original methods of notation, and illustrating the variation in the 
song of a single species, especially of the Wren and the Nightingale. An 
interesting table also shows the relative pitch of the songs of various species 
of birds in comparison with the range of the human voice and other sounds. 
In this there seems to be a fairly regular correspondence between the weight 
of the bird and the pitch of the voice; the highest notes belonging to the 
smallest and lghtest birds. 

Those interested in this fascinating subject, which demands consider- 
able musical as well as ornithological knowledge, will do well to read M. 
de Fenis’s valuable paper.— W. 8. 


1 Contribution a L’ Etude des Cris et Chant des Oiseux dans ses Rapports avec la Musique. 
par M. F. de Fenis. Bull. Institut General Psychologique July-December, 1917, pp. 87- 
130. Paris, at the Office of the Society, 143 Boulevard St. Michel. 


eC 


ti | Recent Literature. 301 


Dwight on a New Gull.!— In an examination of a series of upwards of 
fifty specimens of the Western Gull (Larus occidentalis) Dr. Dwight 
shows that the species is clearly divisible into two races, the typical bird 
of Audubon ranging south at least to Trinidad, California, and a darker 
mantled form with less gray on the primaries, ranging along both coasts 
of Lower California north to the Farallon Islands. This latter race Dr. 
Dwight describes as Larus occidentalis livens (p. 11).— W. S. 


McAtee on the Food Habits of the Mallard Ducks.— The latest 
‘ Bulletin ’ issuing from Biological Survey treats of the food of the Mallard 
and Black Ducks.? A very large amount of data is presented showing 
what a great variety of animal and vegetable species go to make up the 
bill of fare of these birds. 

Ninety per cent of the Mallard’s food we learn consists of vegetable mat- 
ter, more than a third of which is made up of the seeds, roots, leaves and 
tubers of sedges and grasses, and about a fifth, of similar portions of smart- 
weeds and pond weeds. Of the ten per cent of animal matter mollusks 
contribute 5.73 and insects 2.67. 

The food of the Black Duck differs materially from that of the Mallard, 
largely owing to its frequenting the salt marshes and bays along the coast. 
Only about three fourths of its food is vegetable and fully half of this con- 
sists of pond weeds and other submerged plants. Half of the animal food 
is composed of mollusks, the edible mussel being the favorite, while crus- 
tacea furnish eight per cent. 

The Southern Black Duck (Anas fulvigula) living in a region where the 
food supply is not affected by cold winters, feeds more largely upon animal 
matter, forty per cent of its food being of this nature, the greater portion 
consisting of mollusks. Its vegetable food is largely grasses and smart- 
weeds. 

This report is of especial interest on account of the extensive propagation 
of these ducks in a semi-domesticated condition and it is another illustra- 
tion of the thoroughness of Mr. McAtee’s researches along these lines. A 
half-tone plate of the Mallard and Black Duck from a drawing by Fuertes 
illustrates the pamphlet. In connection with duck food attention should 
be called to a recent note by Mr. Alex. Wetmore * on lead poisoning among 
water fowl, in which he states that the shot gathered up by ducks in the 
neighborhood of shooting stands proves fatal to many individuals. It is 
ground up in the stomachs by the pebbles therein contained and causes 
severe diarrhcea followed by slow paralysis. By experiment it was found 
that six number six shot, when swallowed, were fatal in every case.— W. S. 


1 Description of a New Race of the Western Gull. By Jonathan Dwight, M.D. Proc. 
Biol. Soc. Washington, Vol. 32, pp. 11-13. February 14, 1919. 

2 Food Habits of the Mallard Ducks of the United States. By W. L. McAtee, U. S. 
Dept. of Agriculture, Bulletin No. 720, pp. 1-35 and one plate. December 23, 1918. 

’ Journal Washington Acad. Sci., Vol. VIII, No. 11, pp. 375-376, June 4, 1918. 


302 Recent Literature. [April 


Stone on Birds of the Canal Zone.— In ‘ The Auk’ for 1913, pp. 422- 
429, there was published a list of North American birds observed in the 
Panama Canal Zone by Lindsey L. Jewel. Mr. Jewel died before he was 
able to prepare a report on the main portion of his collection. His birds 
later became the property of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Phila- 
delphia and have been identified by Dr. Stone, who has reported upon them 
in the present paper.! In order to make the list of more general use he has 
added the names of all other species which had been reported from the 
Zone by previous writers. The list therefore includes 432 species of which 
236 are represented in Mr. Jewel’s collection. 

An introduction calls attention to the collections which had been made 
in the Zone in previous years, while the list proper contains numerous field 
notes on the various birds, taken from Mr. Jewel’s manuscript memoranda, 
including accounts of the nest and eggs of a number of species. The South 
American Swift Chetura chapmani Hellmayr, is recorded from the isthmus 
for the first time on the basis of two specimens secured at Gatun, July 9, 
1911, while the capture of a specimen of Stelgidopteryx serripennis (Aud.) 
Gatun, December 18, 1910, would seem to extend its range somewhat to 
at the southward. 

Under the note on Reiffer’s Hummingbird, Dr. Stone presents reasons for 
reverting to the name Amazilia for this and other species recently called 
Amizilis and designates Ornismia cinnamomea Less, as the type of the 
former genus. Besides containing much original data the paper will be a 
convenient hand list for future students of Panama bird life.—S. T. 


Shufeldt on the Young Hoatzin.— Dr. Shufeldt ? has studied the 
skeleton and pterylosis of some young Hoatzins submitted to him by Mr. 
Robert C. Murphy. While his observations seem simply to confirm those 
of previous writers he has presented some good photographs of both the 
external appearance ot the young bird and the skeleton and has compiled 
a useful bibliography of papers relating to this interesting species.— W. 8S. 


Riley on Celebes Birds.— In studying a collection of Celebes birds 
obtained by Mr. H. C. Raven in the north peninsula and the mountains 
of the middle part of the Island, and presented to the National Museum 
by Dr. W. L. Abbott, Mr. Riley * found a number of new forms which are 
described in the present paper in advance of the complete catalogue of the 
collection. 


1 Birds of the Panama Canal Zone, with Special Reference to a Collection Made by Mr. 
Lindsey L. Jewel. By Witmer Stone. Proc. Acad. Nat. Sciences Philadelphia, 1918, pp. 
239-280, November 30, 1918. 

2 Notes on the Osteology of the Young of the Hoatzin (Opisthocomus cristatus) and other 
Points on its Morphology. By R. W. Shufeldt. Jour. of Morphology, Vol. 31, No. 3, 
December, 1918, pp. 599-606, plates 1-4. 

3 Two New Genera and eight New Birds from Celebes. By J. H. Riley. Proc. Biol. Soc. 
Washington, Vol. 31, pp. 155-159, December 30, 1918. 


Vol. S| 
1919 


Recent Literature. 303 

A Thickhead apparently allied to Pachycephala is regarded as represent- 
ing a new genus is described as Coracornis raveni (p. 157), while a Cuckoo 
Shrike related to Malindangia of the Philippines also becomes the type of a 
new genus and is named Celebesia abbotti (p. 158). The other new forms are, 
Caprimulgus affinis propinquus (p. 155); Collocalia vestita aenigma (p. 156); 
Rhamphococcyx centralis (p. 156); Luphozosterops striaticeps (p. 157); 
Cataponera abditiva (p. 158); and Cryptolopha nesophila (p. 158).— W. 8. 


Oberholser’s ‘Mutanda Ornithologica V.’— This! is the fifth of a 
series of papers which Dr. Oberholser has been issuing calling attention 
to necessary changes in the nomenclature of birds in various parts of the 
world. The species here treated are all Woodpeckers. Jyngipicus pyg- 
meus (Vig.) he shows must hereafter be known as Yungipicus mitchellit 
(Mahl.), the specific name being preoccupied and the generic name not 
following the original spelling. J. auritus (Eyton) becomes Y. moluccensis 
(Gmel.), the latter specific name being earlier. Dendropicos minutus 
(Temm.) is preoccupied and is renamed D. elachus (p. 8) while Campethera 
punctata (Valencien.) becomes C. punctuligera (Wagl.), for the same 
reason. Gecinus striolatus (Blyth) is in like case and becomes Picus xan- 
thopygius (Bonap.), Gecinus giving way to Picus as explained by Hartert 
(Vogel Palaarkt. Fauna VII p. 889).— W. S. 


Miller’s ‘Birds of Lewiston-Auburn and Vicinity.’— Well pre- 
pared local lists have a very definite value and when they are prepared 
in a way to help the bird student their value is doubled. Such a list is 
Miss Miller’s well printed brochure on the birds of Lewiston-Auburn, 
Maine.” It consists of notes on 161 species which have been observed in 
recent times in the region covered, together with 40 additional species of 
water birds seen by others in the vicinity. Not only is the nature of the 
occurrence and relative abundance of each species in the main list given, 
but there are interesting accounts of their habits from personal observa- 
tion and appropriate quotations from standard works and popular writings 
on nature, which make the text attractive and readable. Preliminary pages 
treat of the bird-life of the four seasons and there are some supplementary 
suggestions to bird students and a table of migrants in the order of their 
spring arrival. The dedication is to Prof. J. Y. Stanton at whose sug- 
gestion the list was prepared and who “ was the author’s inspiration in all 
her bird study.”” His death occurred while the work was in press and the 
addition of the portraits makes it in a measure a memorial to him. We 
might call attention to the tact that this excellent list does not contain a 


1 Mutanda Ornithologica V. By Harry C. Oberholser. Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington, 
Vol. 32, pp. 7-8, February 14, 1919. 

2 Birds of Lewiston-Auburn and Vicinity, by Carrie Ella Miller. With an Introduction 
by Professor J. Y. Stanton. Lewiston Journal Co., Lewiston, Maine [Spring, 1918], 
pp. 1-80 and two portraits of Prof. Stanton. Papers cover 50 cts., cloth $1. 


304 Recent Literature. Ree 


scientific name except in a reference to the origin of the domestic pigeon. 
The A. O. U. numbers are given in parentheses and the A. O. U. vernacular 
names are used with the addition of others when necessary. Thus is a 
matter that seems to trouble many bird students, easily disposed of! If 
the use of scientific names were limited to scientific publications there 
would be far less criticism of the changes in them. Miss Miller’s little 
book is an excellent model for a present day local list for the use of the 
amateur bird student who wishes a reliable and helpful hand book.— W. S. 


Recent Papers by Bangs.— In ‘ The Auk’ 1918, p. 441, Mr. Arthur 
T. Wayne states that on two occasions he saw Black-throated Green 
Warblers, in the maritime region of South Carolina, building a nest and 
carrying nesting materials during April. Mr. Bangs! now describes one 
of these April birds as anew subspecies and states that Mr. Wayne sent 
him a series of seven specimens all of which differed from northern birds 
in the same way —1?.e., in duller coloration and smaller bill. The new 
form is named D. virens waynei (p. 94). In another paper? he discusses 
the species of the genus Paecilonitia as it is now to be spelled, following the 
original publication. He recognizes P. bahamensis bahamensis (Linn.), 
Florida to Brazil; P. b. rubrirostris (Vieill.), from southern South America; 
P. galapagensis Ridgw., Galapagos Isls.; P. spinicauda (Vieill,) southern 
South America; and P. erythrorhyncha (Gmel.), Madagascar and Africa. 

Peles (p. 92) is proposed * by Mr. Bangs as a new genus for Caprimulgus 
binotatus Bp.— A review of the South American Short-eared Owls? 
leads him to recognize three neotropical races. These are Asio f. breviauris 
(Schlegel) from southern South America; A. f. bogotensts Chapman, from 
the Bogota Savanna, and A. f. sanfordi (p. 97) subsp. nov., from the Falk- 
land Islands. 

Another paper ® deals with the races of Dendroica vitellina Cory, and a 
new form is described from Swan Island which Mr. Bangs names D. v. 
nelsoni (p. 494). It is somewhat intermediate between the other forms — 
the typical race of Grand Cayman and D. v. crawfordi Nicoll, from Little 
Cayman and Cayman Brac.— W. 8. 

Economic Ornithology in Recent Entomological Publications.— 
Items pertaining to this subject continue to accumulate slowly. Those on 
hand pertain to the following insects: 


1A New Race of the Black-throated Wood Warbler. By Outram Bangs. Proc. N. E. 
Zool. Club., Vol. VI, pp. 93-94, October 31, 1918. 

2 Notes on the Species and Subspecies of Pecilonitta Eyton. By Outram Bangs. Ibid., 
pp. 87-89. October 31, 1918. 

3A New Genus of Caprimulgide. By Outram Bangs. [I[bid., pp. 91-92. October 31, 
1918. 

« Notes on South American Short-eared Owls. By Outram Bangs. I[bid., pp. 95-98. 
February 8, 1919 

5 The Races of Dendroica viiellina Cory. By Outram Bangs. Bull. Mus. Compar. 
Zobl. Vol. LXII, No. 11, pp. 493-495. January, 1919. 


iio | Recent Literature. 305 


Larch bark-beetles and borers.— In a general account of insects affect- 
ing the larch in Erie County, N. Y., is the following interesting infor- 
mation, relating to the work of woodpeckers.1 

“ The work of woodpeckers is much in evidence and seems to be an effi- 
cient agency in reducing to some extent the numbers of the brood of several 
of the more numerous bark-boring insects. The birds seem to work in two 
ways — first by making small conical holes through the bark into the sap- 
wood to obtain the larve of the larger species of beetles which have gone 
there to hibernate or to pupate, and secondly by removing practically all 
of the bark on large areas of the trunk to uncover the brood (larve, pupze 
and young adults) of the bark beetles. 

“Tn some cases this work reached an unusual degree of efficiency. For 
instance one particular tree forty or fitty feet high and about 14 inches in 
diameter, had had nearly all of the bark removed from the ground to the 
very tip. This tree had been heavily infested with Dendroctonus simplex, 
Polygraphus rufipennis and other borers, but only a small per cent of the 
original infestation had survived the woodpeckers’ thorough search for 
food. Of course all of the infested trees had not been so thoroughly gone 
over by the birds and a number of such trees had apparently not been found 
by them at all. However, it is safe to say that the woodpeckers were an 
efficient force, working toward the return of the normal balance of nature 
which had been upset by the breeding of certain species of insects above the 
danger level, due to the girdling, season after season, of a number of the 
larches by farmers. It is not believed that the woodpeckers will be able 
unaided to reduce the numbers below the danger level, as long as more 
trees are girdled each year, but should this practice cease it is possible that 
they would be able eventually to obtain the upper hand and that conditions 
would return to normal.” 

Lepidopterous root-borers.— The grape root-borer (Memythrus poli- 
stiformis) for which no parasites are known was seen to be eaten in the 
adult stage by the Crested Flycatcher (Myiarchus crinitus).2 Two 
other Flycatchers, the Kingbird and Phoebe, are recorded as enemies of 
both the greater and lesser peach-tree borers (Sannenoidea exitiosa and 
Synanthedon pictipes).* All of these insects are not only seriously destruc- 
tive, but from their secluded habits in the larval stage, have few parasite 
enemies and are difficult to control by man. They belong to a family 
of moths all of which in the adult condition more or less closely mimic wasps 
and other hymenoptera and which have been supposed, probably mis- 
takenly, to derive some advantage from this resemblance, in the way of 
immunity from predatory enemies. 

Cankerworms.— An investigation of the relation of birds to canker- 


1Blackman, M. W. and Stage, Harry H. Tech. Publ. No. 10, N. Y. State College of 
Forestry, May, 1918, pp. 16-17. 

2 Brooks, L. E. Bull. 730, U.S. Dept. Agr., Dec. 24, 1918, p. 27. 

? Gossard, H. A. and King, J. L., Bull. 329, Ohio Agr. Exp. Sta. Sept., 1918, p. 70. 


306 Recent Literature. pall 


worms near Lawrence, Kansas, has had the same result as those made by 
several previous students, among whom were Riley, Forbes and Forbush. 
The following summary of the matter is quoted and abstracted from a 
report! by Mr. Walter H. Wellhouse. 

“ Next to unfavorable weather, the birds are the most important natural 
enemies of the cankerworms. Probably no insect is a favorite food of more 
species of birds than the cankerworm larva. It lives exposed on the out- 
side of twigs and leaves where the birds can easily secure it, and is without 
distasteful hairs or spines on its integument. The English Sparrow, which 
is said to have been imported into America to check the ravages of this 
insect, is no doubt our most efficient cankerworm eater in the cities. We 
have watched these much-despised birds picking larvee from the elms at 
all hours of the day from early morning to twilight, and even during rains. 
The Robin is also an efficient destroyer of cankerworms, especially of the 
moths which are found at the base of the tree. The writer has seen flocks 
of Bronzed Grackles alight in the tall elms in Lawrence, and, moving from 
branch to branch, noisily devour great numbers of larve. Having 
exhausted the supply on one tree they moved in concert to another tree to 
continue the feast. 

““ Many of the more timid birds which are not found in the cities so com- 
monly as the English Sparrow and Robin are just as efficient enemies in the 
country. 

“ Mr. C. D. Bunker, curator of mammals in the Dyche Museum, secured 
a hundred birds from a grove four miles from Lawrence and carefully esti- 
mated the percentage of cankerworm larvee found in their stomachs. They 
were taken near the edge of the timber where they could easily have 
returned from the surrounding fields with other food, and the grove is 
composed of several species of trees, only a small per cent being elms in- 
fested with cankerworms.” 

The hundred bird stomachs reported upon represent 39 species of birds, 
all but three of which had eaten cankerworms. Eighteen of the species 
had at least one individual which had eaten 100% cankerworms. Includ- 
ing birds previously mentioned in the literature as enemies of cankerworms 
the list now totals 75 species. 

White Grubs.— Mr. Norman Criddle has an extremely interesting note 
on the bird enemies of white grubs (larvae of Phyllophaga spp.) in a recent 
article 2 on these pests in Manitoba. He notes that 

“Robins are eager seekers after White Grubs, and have been known to 
frequent infested fields for weeks. Crows, apart from their habit of fol- 
lowing the plough, are also very useful as grub searchers; the same may 
be said of Flickers.’ 

The following extract contains a specific recommendation that farm 


? 


1 Bull. Univ. Kans. Vol. 18, No. 1, Oct., 1917, pp. 301-302, Wellhouse, Walter H. 
2 Agr. Gaz. Can. Vol. 5, No. 5, May, 1918, pp. 449-454. 


icin yes Recent Literature. 307 


practice be planned chiefly with a view of best utilizing the services of 
birds in destroying white grubs; a remarkable tribute to the effectiveness 
of practical economic ornithology: 

“‘ Birds are most persistent followers of the plough during iho breeding 
season or while migrating; gulls and terns from May 16th to June 22d, 
and for a short time late in July; crows and blackbirds, including grackles, 
from the time grubs appear in May until July Ist. 

“From the foregoing we reach the conclusion that to attain the best 
possible results under conditions existing in Manitoba, ploughing should 
be done between May 14th and July Ist, and at an average depth of five 
inches. The idea is, of course, to turn up as many gTubs, eggs, or pup 
as possible, a majority of which will, in all probability, be picked up by 
birds. Many eggs will be destroyed by the plough alone, but it is advisable 
to harrow as soon as possible after ploughing, as by this means numerous 
egg cells will be broken, causing a large percentage of deaths among the 
eggs and newly-hatched young, besides exposing them to attack by birds. 
Exposed pup will also be destroyed by this method. 

“So far as the interests of farming is concerned, it will be observed that 
the above recommendations do not in any way clash with the best cul- 
tural methods. There is good reason for believing, too, that they will 
prove of value in the destruction of wireworms. 

“With reference to the large part birds are expected to play in this 
work, it may be claimed that birds are not always present in sufficient 
numbers, and that their capacity is, after all, limited. Granting this to be 
true in certain districts, we must remember that white grubs are only 
found within comparatively close range of trees, and that their principal 
habitats coincide with the haunts of Crows, the most persistent of all 
plough followers. Thus, if there are no Crows present the farmer and 
sportsman are probably largely to blame, and the question then resolves 
itself into the economic one as to which does most harm, the Crows or the 
white grubs. We do not think there can be much doubt on this point 
in grub-infested localities. The writer has personally seen fully ninety per 
cent of white grubs exposed picked up by Crows when he was himself 
the ploughman. 

“ Blackbirds are more dependent upon water than Crows, hence are not 
so evenly distributed, but when present prove very efficient grub destroyers. 
Cowbirds (Molothrus ater) are also extremely useful in this respect, and 
probably largely compensate for their parasitic habits by this means.’? — 
W. L. M. 


The Ornithological Journals. 


Bird-Lore. XXI, No. 1. January—February, 1919. 
When the North Wind Blows. By A. A. Allen.— Excellent photographs 
of winter birds and account of the actions of the White-breasted Nuthatch. 


308 Recent Literature. [ Pees 


Our Responsibility. By Mabel Osgood Wright.— Another admirable 
account of winter bird life, in Connecticut. 

Notes from a Traveller in the Tropics. Cuba to Panama. By Frank M. 
Chapman. 

An Evening with Birds in Florida. By J. W. Lippincott. 

The Great Horned Owl. By F. N. Whitman.— Account of nest and 
young. 

Under ‘Migration and Plumages of North American Birds’ the Ravens 
are considered, and there is the usual large collection of Christmas lists. 

The Condor. XX, No.6. November—December, 1918. 

Nesting of the Rocky Mountain Jay. By W. C. Bradbury.— A valu- 
able account with numerous illustrations of the bird, its nest, eggs, and 
haunts. 

Description of a new Lanius from Lower California. By Harry C. Ober- 
holser.— Lanius ludovicianus nelsoni (p. 209), Todos Santos. 

Mr. P. A. Taverner has a letter explaining his practice of employing only 
binomial nomenclature until the necessary specimens and comparisons are 
available to ensure beyond a doubt to which race the bird in question 
belongs (see beyond p. 316). 

The Condor. XXI, No.1. January-February, 1919. 

A Return to the Dakota Lake Region. By Florence Merriam Bailey.— 
A continuation ot this delightful article. 

The Solitaires of Shasta. By W. Leon Dawson.— Good account of the 
bird and its nesting, with illustrations from photographs. 


Nesting of the Short-eared Owl in Western Washington. By E. A. 


Kitchin.— Good illustrations of nest and young. 

Problem: Do Birds Mate for Life? By J. Eugene Law.— The same sug- 
gestion Is made, among others, as is offered in ‘ The Auk,’ p. 138, in comment 
on a paper of similar title by F. C. Willard. A further extended comment 
on the same paper follows Mr. Law’s, which is by N. K. Carpenter and 
supports Mr. Willard, although the evidence except in one instance is no 
more convincing than was his. 

Parasitism of Nestling Birds by Fly Larve. By O. E. Plath.— This is a 
valuable account of the same parasites referred to in a letter of Dr. W. W. 
Arnold in ‘The Auk’ for January, 1919, p. 147, giving a much fuller 
history of the insect. 

Wilson Bulletin. XXX, No. 4. December, 1918. 

Finding the Nest of the Knot. By W. Elmer Erkblaw.— On the 
Crocker Land Expedition, in 1916. Eggs now in the American Museum of 
Natural History. 

Migration Records for Kansas Birds. By Bessie P. Douthitt.— This 
instalment covers the water birds only. The nomenclature does not 
follow the A. O. U. List but seems to be a compilation from various authors 
who have ideas of their own on this subject. The result is rather startling. 
In the Cranes for instance, the author divides our three species, which 
everyone has regarded as congeneric, into two groups Limnogeranus and 


pel eo | Recent Literature. 309 


Grus, names which by the way are synonyms. As we have stated before 
we can see no result but confusion in departing from the generally recog - 
nized A. O. U. names in local lists of North American species. 

Revisory Notes on the List of the Birds of Nebraska. By Myron W. 
Swenk.— In this list too we find names which have not been authorized 
by the A. O. U. ‘ Check-List.’ 

The OGdlogist. XXXV, No. 12. December, 1918. 

Observations on a Family of Winter Wrens. By Alex. D. McGrew.— 
Data on the feeding of the young, with photographs of the female, at 
Endeavor, Pa. 

The Odlogist. XXXVI, No.1. January, 1919. 

Some Nesting Birds of the Palisades Interstate Park. By P. M. Silloway. 

The Ibis. (XI Series), I, No. 1. January, 1919. 

Notes on Collections of Birds in the British Museum, from Ecua- 
dor, Peru, Bolivia, and Argentina. Part I. Tinamide — Rallide. By 
Charles Chubb.— This report covers collections made by Perry O. Simonds 
in the countries mentioned which have been presented to the Museum by 
Mr. Oldfield Thomas; as well as the Goodfellow Ecuador Collection and 
one made by the late Lord Brabourne in northwestern Peru. 

The following new forms are described. Crypturus garleppi affinis (p. 8), 
Rio Blanca, Bolivia; Chamepetes goudotii antioquiana (p. 22), Valdivia, 
Antioquia, Colombia; Odontophorus guianensis simonsi (p. 26), San 
Ernesto, Mapiri, Bolivia; O. g. panamensis (p. 26), Panama; O. g. buckleyi 
(p. 27), Sarayacu, eastern Ecuador; Zenaida auriculata noronha (p. 36), 
Fernando Noronha Island; Leptoptila verreauxi brevipennis (p. 45), Teini- 
dad; Pardirallus rityrhynchus tschudii (p. 50), Junin, central Peru; 
Aramides cajanea grahami (p. 53); Para. 

Birds from the North of France. By Capt. A. W. Boyd.— An anno- 
tated list covering a year’s service in the British Army in the departments 
of Pas de Calais, Somme and Nord. 

On One of the Four Original Pictures from Life of the Reunion or White 
Dodo. By Lord Rothschild.— An interesting historical sketch with 
reproduction of the picture. 

A Note on Capt. Beebe’s Monograph of the Pheasants. By H. J. 
Elwes.— A tribute to the work, with some important criticism on the value 
of certain races there recognized. 

On the Eclipse Plumage of Sporophila pileata. By F. E. Blaauw.— Has 
distinct winter and summer plumages. ; 

List of the Birds of the Canary Islands, with Detailed Reference to the 
Migratory Species and the Accidental Visitors.— Part I. Corvida—Sylvii- 
dz. By David A. Bannerman.— This is a remarkably complete treatment 
of the subject, the author having made an exhaustive study of the litera- 
ture and taken a number of trips to the islands. The present publication 
is preliminary to a proposed book on the subject. 

In the reviews the editor of ‘The Ibis’ honors us by crediting ‘ The Auk’ 
with some 300 more pages than actually appeared in the 1918 volume; we 


310 Recent Literature. [ Rem 


hope however that ere long we may be able to live up to his generous 
allowance! 

Bulletin of the British Ornithologists’ Club. CCXXXVII. 
November 30, 1918. 

This number contains the annual review of ornithological activities by 
the Chairman, Mr. W. L. Sclater. 

There are also descriptions of a number of new species, as follows: 
By W. L. Sclater; Buteo jakal archeri (p. 17), Waghar, Somaliland. By 
E. C. Stuart Baker; Bhringa remifer peracensis (p. 18), Telom, Malay 
Peninsula; Picus canus gyldenstolpei (p. 19); Sadiya, Assam; Thereiceryxr 
lineatus intermedius (p. 19), Pahpoon, Burmah; Cyanops duvaceli robinsont 
(p. 20), Klang, Malay Peninsula; Pitta cerulea hosei (p. 20), Mt. Dulit, 
Borneo. By Dr. Hartert; Corvus rhipidurus as a substitute for Corvus 
affinis Ruppell (p. 210). By Charles Chubb; Gampsonyx swainsonit 
magnus (p. 21), Amotape, Peru; G. s. leone (p. 22), Leon, Nicaragua; 
Falco rufigularis petoensis (p. 22), Peto, Yucatan; F. r. pax (p. 22), Charu- 
playa, Bolivia. By G. M. Mathews: Diomedia exulans westralis (p. 23), 
W. Australia, off Albany; Acanthiza pusilla peroni (p. 23), Peron Peninsula, 
Australia; Leggeornis lamberti hartogi (p. 24), Dirk Hartog Island, Austra- 
lia; Uvodynamis taitensis belli (p. 24); Norfolk Island. 

Bulletin of the British Ornithologists’ Club. CCXXXVIII. 
January 3, 1919. 

Mr. Chas. Oldham gave an extended account of the preeine of the Black- 
necked Grebe (Podiceps nigricollis). 

Mr. E. C. Stuart Baker discusses the races of Alcedo meninting of which 
he recognizes six. A. m. coltarti (p. 39), from Saddya, Assam and A. m. 
scintillans (p. 38), Bankasoon, are described as new. ; 

Dr. Hartert proposed Aegithalos caudatus pyrenaicus for a new race 
recently described in ‘ Novitates Zoélogice ’ but inadvertently not named. 

Mr. Chas. Chubb described: Sclerurus mexicanus certus (p. 41) Guate- 
mala, Volean de Agua; S. m. macconnelli (p. 41), Ituribisi River, British 
Guiana; S. m. peruvianus (p. 41), Yurimaguas, east Peru; S. m. bahie 
(p. 42), Bahia, Brazil; and the new genus Poliolema (p. 42), for Myrmo- 
therula cinereiventris (Sel. & Salv.). 

Bulletin of the British Ornithologists’ Club. CCXXXIX. Janu- 
ary 29, 1919. 

Mr. Stuart Baker described as new, Penthoceryx sonnerati waiti (p. 47), 
Ceylon. Dr. Hartert; Serinus buchanani (p. 50), Maktan, East Africa. 
Mr. Chas. Chubb; Dendrocincla bartletti (p. 50), Chamicuros, east Peru; 
D. fuliginosa wallacet (p. 52), Para, Brazil; Xenops genibarbis cayoensis 
(p. 52), Cayo, British Honduras. 

British Birds. XII, No.7. December, 1918. 

The Moults and Sequence of Plumages of the British Waders. By Annie 
C. Jackson.— Northern Phalarope, Stilt, Avocet and Godwit. Concluded 
in the next number, which contains the Curlew, Snipe and Woodchuck. 

Avicultural Magazine. X, No. 3. January, 1919. 


gel a Recent Literature. 311 


Colour Change in the Plumage of Birds. By Dr. V. G. L. Van Someren. 
— A most important reply to a paper by Dr. A. G. Butler which claimed 
color change in a Weaver Bird (Pyromelana) and referred to Turacus as a 
good illustration of the passing of pigment up the vanes of fully formed 


- feathers. The author states that numerous experiments with the crimson 


feathers of the latter genus from both skins and living birds failed to show 
any loss of color. Similar experiments in the Philadelphia Zodlogical 
Garden, it might be added, resulted in the same way. In regard to the 
Weaver, all Dr. Van Someren’s birds effected the change by molt as might 
be expected, and they ate many of the feathers which accounts for the lack 
of cast feathers in many accounts of supposed color change. These obser- 
vations should settle this vexed question. 

Avicultural Magazine. X, No. 2. December, 1918. 

-The Pigeons of the Gambia. By E. Hopkinson. 

The Emu. XVIII, Part Ill. January, 1919. 

Haunts of the Letter-winged Kite (Elanus scriptus Gould). By Sidney 
W. Jackson. 

An interesting account of a trip through Western Queensland with a 
list of the birds observed. Illustrations of the nest, eggs and young of the 
Kite. 

Notes on Birds from the Gouldian-Gilbert Type Locality, North 
Australia. By A. J. Campbell— This paper is an account of a collection 
made by Wm. McLennan near Port Essington, the spot where Gilbert 
collected so many of the birds described by Gould. In commenting on 
the type localities quoted by Mr. Mathews, the author calls attention to 
the fact that they do not always agree with those given by Gould in his 
original descriptions, in the ‘ Proceedings’ of the Zodlogical Society. 
Mr. Campbell would do well to consult the paper prepared by Mr. Mathews 
and the editor of ‘The Auk.’ (Austral Avian Record, Vol. I, No. 6-7), 
in which the history of the Gould collection is given and individual speci- 
mens selected as the types. The collection is not at Washington, as Mr. 
Campbell supposes, but at Philadelphia, in the museum of the Academy 
of Natural Sciences, where it has been ever since it left Europe. The 
fact that Gould described a few birds from the north-west coast of Australia, 
before Gilbert reached Pt. Essington, as stated by Mr. Campbell, is inter- 
esting and would seem to indicate that the latter should not be quoted as 


_the type locality. In such cases, when all the specimens were labelled 


Pt. Essington, we selected one of them as the type, as it seemed likely that 
the labelling might be inaccurate and no other possible types seemed to 
be in existence. 

Four Ornithological Trips to the Nullabor Plains. By Capt. S. A. 
White.— An interesting account of travel in this region with many illus- 
trations. 

Revue Francaise d’Ornithologie. X., No. 114. October 7, 1918. 
{In French. } 

Contribution to a Study of the Storm Petrels of the Mediterranean. By 
L. Lauden. 


1p Recent Literature. [ fees 


Researches on the Group of Sazicola aurita and S. stapazina. By M. 
Bede (concluded in the next number). 

Study of a Collection of Birds made by M. E. Wagner in the Provence of 
Misiones, Argentina. By A. Menegaux (continued in the next number). 

Revue Frangaise d‘Ornithologie. X., No. 115. November 7, 1918. 

Two Character Indices and Differentials of the Passeres, Waders and 
Gallinaceous Birds. By Maurice Boubier.— Comparisons of the relative 
length of the first and middle digits, and between the length and breadth 
of the bill. 

The December number consists of an index to the volume. 


Ornithological Articles in Other Journals. 


Oberholser, H.C. Description of a New Jole from the Anumba Islands. 
(Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington XX XI, December 30, 1918.— I. olivacea crypta 
(p. 197). 

Oberholser, H.C. Status of the Genus Orchilus. Cabanis. (Ibid.) — 
Nothorchilus, gen. nov. (p. 204) type Platyrhynchus auricularis Vieill. 

Hartert, Ernst. Notes on Starlings. (Novitates Zodl., XXV, No. 2, 
November, 1918.)— A review of the races of Sturnus vulgaris, of which 19 
are recognized, S. v. zetlandicus (p. 329) North Yell, Shetland Isls., is 
described as new. 

Hartert, Ernst and Goodson, A. T. Notes on Pigeons. (Ibid.).— 
Revisions of various species. The following new forms are proposed: 
Ptilinopus rivolit buruanus (p. 347), Buru; Teron calva poensis (p. 350), 
Fernando Po; T’. c. brevicera (p. 353), Moschi, E. Africa; T. c. sejzuncta 
(p. 353), Portuguese Guinea; 7’. curvirostra hainana (p. 356), Hainan; 
Geopelia maugeus audacis (p. 358) Tenimber. 

Hartert, Ernst. Some Nomenclatorial Notes. (/bid.).— Reference to 
Navas’ ‘Ornithologia de Arag6n (1907) ’ and new names proposed therein. 
Also the following changes. Corvus affinis Rupp. becomes C. brachyrhyn- 
chos Brehm; Oriolus melanocephalus lL. 1766 becomes O. luteolus (L.) 
1758; Muscicapa grisola (L.) becomes M. striata (Pall.); Carpophaga 
becomes Muscadivora Schl., Muscidivores Gray being rejected. There is 
finally a strong protest against changing names on the basis of one letter 
(or other slight) difference. 

Hartert, Ernst. A New Race of Long-tailed Titmouse. (Jbid.).— 
Pyrenees form described but not named (see antea p. 310). 

Hartert, Ernst. Garrulus bispecularis and its allies with List of all 
Forms of Garrulus. (Ibid.) —G. b. persaturatus (p. 430) Khasia Hills, 
G. b. interstinctus Darjiling. 

Hartert, Ernst. Further Notes on Pigeons. (lbid.) — Phlegenas 
crinigera basilanica (p. 484), Basilan; P. c. leytensis (p. 434), Leyte. 

Wait, W. E. Notes on Ceylon Water Birds. Part II. (Spolia Zey- 
lanica, X, Part 39.) October, 1917. 


Gini Ma Recent Literature. 313 


Wait, W.E. Rough Draft of Ceylon Pigeons and Game Birds. (Jbid.) 

Oberholser, H. C. Spizixide, a new Family of Pycnonotine Passeri- 
formes. (Jour. Washington Acad. Sciences, IX. January 4, 1919.)— 
Spizixide (p. 14) also Cophixus gen. nov. type Spizixus semitorquus (p. 15). 

Iverson, L. Moth. An Essay Comparing some Mammals and Birds 
of North Central Europe with Related Species native in Northern United 
States. (Trans. Utah Acad. Sci., I, 1918.) — A rather unfortunate effort, 
as the vernacular names used for American species sometimes leave one 
in doubt as to what bird the author has in mind; the Coots of the two 
countries are said to be quite differently colored! 

Anonymous. Protection of Insect-eating Birds in St. Vincent [West 
Indies]. (The Agricultural News, XVIII, January, 1919.) 

Slonaker, J. R. A Physiological Study of the Anatomy of the Eye and 
its Accessory Parts, of the English Sparrow (Passer domesticus). (Jour. of 
- Morphology, XX XI, pp. 351-434, 1918.) ; 

Johnson, C. KE. The Origin of the Ultimobranchial Body and its 
Relation to the Fifth Pouch in Birds. (Lbid., pp. 583-592.) 

Robinson, Herbert C. Two Abnormal Specimens of Ducks in the Col- 
lection of the Zoélogical Survey of India. (Records of the Indian Museum, 
XV, pp. 41-48, 1918.) — Eunetta falcata X Chaulelasmus streperus; and 
Anas boschas X Querquedula crecca. 

Philpott, Alfred. Notes on Certain Introduced Birds in South-land 
(New Zealand). (The New Zealand Jour. of Sci., I, No. 6, 1918.) — 
Twelve species of English birds have been introduced,-many of these 
have increased and spread widely while others have not. 

White, S. A. Results of the South Australian Museum Expedition to 
Strzelecki and Cooper Creeks, September and October, 1916. (Trans. and 
Proc. Royal Soc. South Australia, XLI, pp. 441-466, 1917.) 

Van Sommeren, V.G. L. Pitta angolensis longipennis (Reichenow). 
(Jour. East African-Uganda Nat. Hist. Soc. No. 18, pp. 279-280.) 

Lletget, Augusto Gil. Two New Passeres from the Collection of the 
Pacific Expedition. (Bol. Real. Soc. Espan. Hist. Nat., XVIII, No. 7-8, 
pp. 340-341.) —Icterus xantholemus (p. 340), Ecuador, and Cercomacra 
tyranina atrogularis (p. 341); the Icterus is not compared with other 
forms. [In Spanish.] 

San Martin, Julio. On the Turkey Vulture. (Mem. Soc. Cubana, 
Hist. Nat. Felipe Poey, II, pp. 29-38.) 1916. [In Spanish.] 

Sanches, y Roig, Mario. The Naturalist William S. MacLeay. (Lbid., 
pp. 73-78.). [In Spanish] 

Ramsden, C. T. Life and Zodlogical Explorations of Dr. Juan Gund- 
lach in Cuba. (/bid., II], pp. 146-168.) [In Spanish.] 

Ramsden, C. T. The Turkey Vulture (Cathartes aura). Results of 
Experiments Concerning the Transmission of Disease through their Diges- 
tive Organs ([bid, pp. 174-178) [In Spanish.] 

Rodrigues y Toralbas, Victor J. A New Species for the Ornis of 


314 Recent Literature. [pa 


Cuba. (Ibid., pp. 22, 223-224.) Cinnamon Teal, (Querquedula cyanop- 
tera.) [In Spanish.] 

Heikertinger, Franz. An Attempt to Solve the Problem: How can 
the Native Country and Geographic Distribution of a Species be Indicated 
through a brief addition to its Specific Name? (Zoél. Anzeiger, L. pp. 
41-54. 1918.) — This paper should prove of interest to students of nomen- 
clature, who find their field of activity narrowing through the gradual 
settling of the older points of dispute. Without attempting to explain 
the meaning of the various prefixes and suffixes proposed, we may say that 
the Puffin, Fratercula arctica appears, as ‘‘ Dufraterclus. oarcticus.” [In 
German.| 

Lebedinsky, N. G. On the Form of the Under Mandible in Birds. 
([bid., pp. 36-31.) [In German.] 


Publications Received.— Bangs, Outram. (1) Notes on the Species 
and Subspecies of Pecilonitta Eyton. (Proc. N. E. Zool. Club, VI, pp. 
87-89. October 31, 1918.) (2) A New Genus of Caprimulgide. (Jbid., 
pp. 91-92.) (3) A New Race of the Black-throated Green Warbler. 
(Ibid., pp. 938-94). (4) Notes on South American Short-eared Owls. 
(Ibid., pp. 95-98.) (5) The Races of Dendroica vitellina Cory. (Bull. 
Mus. Comp. Zoél., LXII, No. 11, January, 1919.) (6) Types of Pachy- 
cephala littayet Layard. (Ibis, October, 1918.) 

De Fenis, M. IF. Contribution a |’Etude des Cris et du Chant des 
Oiseaux dans ses Rapports avec la Musique. (Bull. l’Inst. Gen. Psycho- 
logique. Juliet-Decembre, 1917, pp. 87-130.) 

Dwight, Jonathan. Description of a New Race of the Western Gull. 
(Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash., 32, pp. 11-14, February 14, 1919.) 

Grinnell, Joseph, Bryant, H. C., and Storer, Tracy L. The Game 
Birds of California. University of California Press, Berkeley, 1918. Large 
8vo, pp. i-x + 1-642, 16 colored plates, 94 text figures. Cloth, $6.00 net. 

McAtee, W. L. Food Habits of the Mallard Ducks of the United 
States. (Bull. 720 U. 8. Dept. Agric., pp. 1-35, December 23, 1918.) 

Mathews, Gregory M. The Birds of Australia, VII, Pt. IV, December 
19, 1918. 

Miller, Carrie Ella. Birds of Lewiston-Auburn and Vicinity. Pp. 1-80, 
Lewiston Journal Co., Lewiston, Maine. Price 50 cents paper, $1.00 cloth. 

Oberholser, H. C. Mutanda Ornithologica, V. (Proc. Biol. Soc. 
Wash., 32, pp. 7-8, February 14, 1919.) 

Riley, J. H. Two New Genera and Eight New Birds from Celebes. 
([bid., 31, pp. 155-160, December 30, 1918.) 

Shufeldt, R. W. Notes on the Osteology of the Young of the Hoatzin 
(Opisthocomus cristatus) and Other Points on its Morphology. (Journ. 
Morphology, 31, No. 8, December, 1918.) 

Stone, Witmer. Birds of the Panama Canal Zone, with Special Refer- 
ence to a Collection made by Mr. Lindsey L. Jewel. (Proc. Acad. Nat. 
Sci. Phila., 1918, pp. 239-280, November 30, 1918.) 


esis | Recent Literature. 315 


Wetmore, Alexander. (1) Birds Observed near Minco, Central Okla- 
homa. (Wilson Bull., March, 1918.) (2) Lead Poisoning in Waterfowl. 
(Jour. Wash. Acad. Sci., VIII, No. 11, June 4, 1918.) 

Zimmer, John T. A Few Rare Birds from Luzon, Mindanao and Min- 
doro. (Philipp. Jour. of Sci. XIII, No. 5, Sect. D., Sept., 1918.) 


American Museum Journal, XVIII, No. 8, December, 1918. 

Avicultural Magazine, (3), X, Nos. 2 and 3, December, 1918 and Janu- 
ary, 1919. 

Bird-Lore, X XI, No. 1, January—February, 1919. 

Bird Notes and News, VIII, No. 4, Winter, 1918. 

British Birds, XII, Nos. 7 and 8, December, 1918 and January, 1919. 

Bulletin American Game Protective Association, 7, No. 4, October, 
1918. 

Bulletin British Ornithologists’ Club, Nos. CCXXXVII-CCXXXIX, 
November 30, 1918, January 3 and 29, 1919. 

Bulletin Charleston Museum, XV, No. 1, January, 1919. 

California Fish and Game, V, No. 1, January, 1919. 

Condor, The, XX, No. 6, XXI, No. 1, November—December, 1918 and 
January—February, 1919. 

Emu, The, XVIII, Part 3, January, 1919. 

Fin, Feathers and Fur, No. 16, December, 1918. 

Ibis, The, (11) I, No. 1, January, 1919. 

OGlogist, The, XX XV, No. 12, XXXVI, Nos. 1 and 2, December, 1918, 
January and February, 1919. 

Ottawa Naturalist, The, XXXII, Nos. 5 and 6, November and Decem- 
ber, 1919. 

Proceedings and Transactions Nova Scotia Institute of Science, XIV, 
Part 3 (August, 1918.) 

Revue Frangaise d’Ornithologie, X, Nos. 114-116, October-December, 
1918. 

Scottish Naturalist, The, Nos. 83 and 84, November and December, 
1918. 

Wilson, Bulletin, The, XXX, No. 4, December, 1918. 


316 Correspondence. hes 


CORRESPONDENCE 


IDENTIFICATIONS. 
(CHARACTERS Vs. GEOGRAPHY). 


Epiror oF ‘THE AUK’; 


We are between two horns of a dilemna. On the one hand, wide Dr. 
Dwight, how can we verify a specimen as subspecies ‘‘x”’ unless it carries 
the distinguishing marks by which ‘‘x”’ is characterized? Subspecific 
and other similar distributions must be founded upon observed differences 
in specimens; to reverse the process and identify specimens geographically 
without regard to characters neither adds to nor verifies existing knowledge 
and is reasoning in a vicious circle. It can confirm error but never correct 
it. 

On the other hand, as Dr. Grinnell points out, taxonomic relationship 
descends genetically. An individual is form “‘y”’ because it comes of ‘‘y”’ 
parentage, not because it happens to show certain peculiarities of form or 
color. Just as distribution maps must be based upon exhibited characters, 
so genesis is more fundamental than appearance or form which manifes- 
tations may at any time be obscured by atavism, mutation or migration. 
The very fact that a certain subspecies exists in some part of a specific 
range is indicative that it is a possible variation in that species and sug- 
gests a certain tendency in that direction latent in every individual of 
that specific form. We can therefore expect, every now and then, to 
find individuals of pure “‘x”’ blood resembling, in varying degree, “y”’ of 
the same species. To name such a specimen “y”’ is as logical as calling 
a Viceroy butterfly a Monarch because it superficially resembles one. 
On these points, Dr. Grinnell is as sound as Dr. Dwight is on his. 

The flaw in Dr. Grinnell’s reasoning is however in his advising the geo- 
graphical identification of aberrant specimens on the assumption that 
genetic and geographical relationship are synonymous. Dealing with 
stationary forms of life, such as plants, proximity of station is only strong 
presumptive evidence of genetic affinity. With mobile birds such proba- 
bility is tremendously reduced. With Scissor-tailed Flycatchers from 
Hudson Bay and Black-capped Petrels from the Mississippi Valley it is 
evident that community of association is only presumptive of community 
of descent and that geography is an uncertain guide to identification. 

Dr. Grinnell pleads for the exercise of ‘‘the judgment based upon experi- 
ence — just as is needed in any other advanced field of knowledge.” No 
one will quarrel with him over the value of this necessary qualification of 
decision. The only question is where shall it be used? Is not the first 
duty of the scientific investigator the elimination of the human equation 
in the statement of fact? In the deductions drawn therefrom full scope 


vol. 519 ed Correspondence. 317 


must be allowed for the genius of skilled intuition but a sharp dividing 
line must always be drawn between ascertained demonstrable facts and - 
hypotheses. 

The truth is, we cannot with absolute certainty identify every specimen 
we study. Why then deceive ourselves and mislead others by making a 
bluff at doing the impossible? Why not own up honestly and admit that 
we cannot name such material? We may state that we think it is so and 
so and where necessary give reasons for the conclusion, but to pass as fact 
what is only opinion is not the spirit of modern science. The logical 
solution of the problem is to name subspecifically only such specimens as 
are humanly demonstrable and use the binomial for the rest. In other 
words reverse usual practice and instead of using the trinomial regularly 
and the binomial on occasion use the binomial generally and the trinomial 
only where necessity or the facts justify its use. 

P. A. TAVERNER. 
Museum Geological Survey, 
Ottawa, Ont., Dec. 27, 1918. 


[While there are some points in favor of Mr. Taverner’s plan, which by 
the way he has put into practice in his article on ‘The Birds of the Red 
Deer River’ in this and the preceding numbers of ‘The Auk,’ there are 
others which count against it. 

First of all we must realize that the practice of duplicating the specifie 
name when referring to the earliest subspecies of a group —1. e. Melospiza 
melodia melodia — is by no means universally adopted, and in very many 
recent papers and all of those of earlier date the binomial Melospiza melodia 
is used for the first described race and trinomials for the others. Now Mr. 
Taverner would use this binomial for some one race (seen but not posi- 
tively determined) of M. melodia. In the A. O. U. ‘Check-List’ the same 
binomial is used to indicate the whole group of subspecies of Song Sparrows 
collectively. Hence we have three different concepts which we try to 
denote by one expression. In an index these are hopelessly confused and 
we are likely to miss valuable information about some form that we are 
investigating because it is masquerading under some specific name where 
we would never think of looking for it. 

Now as we have in current use a form of name to indicate just what Mr. 
Taverner has in mind, why not stick to it —1. e. Melospiza melodia subsp.? 
This would avoid all ambiguity. As his practice stands I find it is quite 
misunderstood, as all of those of whom I inquired, and who had not read 
Mr. Taverner’s published views on the subject, thought that he was simply 
following Mr. Leverett M. Loomis in abandoning subspecies entirely. 

Another difficulty presents itself when we try to follow out Mr. Taverner’s 
plan in the matter of closely related species. There are many species that 
so closely resemble one another that differentiation would be impossible 
in the field should they happen to occur together. Now Mr. Taverner in 


318 Correspondence. [ aa 


his efforts to avoid every possible mistake refuses to designate the subspecies 
of the American Magpie because there are European races of the bird which 
would be indistinguishable from it should they happen to occur here. At 
the same time he does not hesitate to name the Titlark, Anthus rubescens, 
although he would find it equally difficult to distinguish it from the Euro- 
pean A. spinoletta — of which indeed Dr. Oberholser considers it a sub- 
species. So with the Bittern, Solitary Sandpiper, Spotted Sandpiper, etc., 
ete., which closely resemble species in other parts of the world. Now if 
it is permissible to ‘‘guess”’ at these species why not guess the subspecies 
also, where we are reasonably certain of them, and use the form I have 
indicated above in cases where we are on the borderland between races or 
where winter flocks may contain more than one subspecies? 

If we should collect several specimens of a bird that was widely dis- 
tributed over the region we were exploring it would seem absurd not to 
infer that all were the same form, and record them as common — though 
we should really be absolutely certain of only the few that had been shot. 

As a matter of fact it is possible to make a misidentification in the case of 
almost any sight record and we also make misidentifications when we have 
specimens actually in hand, while every reviser of a group has a different 
opinion as to the disposition of specimens from certain regions. There- 
fore it should be clear that no system of names will ensure absolute accuracy. 

In view of all this why not follow previous custom and make our identi- 
fications generic, specific and subspecifie where the evidence points with 
reasonable clearness; using “‘sp.?”’ or ‘‘subsp?’’ where there is a real 
doubt? 

Nomenclature is now bearing about all the burdens it will stand and with 
the excessive multiplication of genera, the establishment of several different 
kinds of intergradation, the proposed revision in the forms of names accord- 
ing as they are regarded as adjectives or nouns — it is rapidly weakening 
both in utility and stability, and ere long we may be in danger of a collapse 
of the whole cumbersome system!— WITMER SToNE.] 


Cates en Notes and News. 319 


NOTES AND NEWS. 


Dr. FREDERICK DuCaNnrE GopMAN, one of the original Honorary Fellows 
of the American Ornithologists’ Union, a past president of the British 
Ornithologists’ Union and famous as one of the authors of the ‘Biologia 
Centrali Americana,’ died at his home in England on February 19, 1919, 
aged 85 years. 

Dr. Godman was born on January 15, 1834, and was educated at Eton 
and Trinity College, Cambridge. At college he met Osbert Salvin and the 
two developed an intimate friendship which was broken only by Salvin’s 
death in 1898. There were other college friends too, all of them interested 
in ornithology and they used to meet for comparison of notes and speci- 
mens. This led to the formation in 1857 in the rooms of Alfred Newton, 
of the British Ornithologists’ Union. 

Entomology and Botany also engaged Godman’s attention and a trip 
with Salvin to Jamaica, Belize and Guatemala, in 1861, resulted in the 
collecting of a large amount of natural history material. They united 
their collections and began preparations for the great work on the natural 
history of Central America which has been ever closely associated with 
their names — the ‘Biologia Centrali Americana’ the first parts of which 
appeared in 1878. Godman with a corps of expert collectors visited Mexico 
in 1888 in the interests of this work, while at various times he made trips 
to different parts of Europe, and North Africa. He published a work on 
the Azores in which islands he had travelled extensively and was also 
author of numerous articles in ‘The Ibis’ and other scientific journals. 
During his later life he was more interested in entomology, pursuing ex- 
tensive studies in the Lepidoptera, but joined with Dr. Bowdler Sharpe 
in 1907 in getting out a Monograph of the Petrels, a work which his friend 
Salvin had always had in mind. 

Dr. Godman was deeply interested in hunting and fishing and his great 
diversion from his more serious work was horticulture. He served both 
as Secretary and President of the B. O. U. and was a trustee of the British 
Museum. His death leaves but one of the original Honorary Fellows of 
the A. O. U., Count Salvadori.— W. 8S. 


Rosert Day Hoyt, a pioneer naturalist and bird collector in Florida, 
died at his home at Seven Oaks, near Clearwater, Florida, on November 
23, 1918. Although never a member of the American Ornithologists’ 
Union, he possessed a wide knowledge of Florida birds and through his 
collections contributed much to the advancement of ornithology in that 
State. 

Mr. Hoyt was born in New York City, November 18, 1857. When he 
was about eighteen years of age, his parents moved to Madison, New 
Jersey. He early developed a love for the outdoors and the living creatures 


320 Notes and News. ree 


about him. When still quite young he became acquainted with David 

Dickenson, of Chatham, New Jersey, and from him learned the art of 

taxidermy. He then went to Florida on a collecting trip and spent several 

weeks camping with his father on the St. Johns River, the Oklawaha, and 

Silver Springs. He continued to visit the State every winter thereafter 

until 1881, when he moved to Clearwater and bought the place at Seven 

Oaks where he lived the rest of his life. 

He improved every opportunity to collect natural history material and 
amassed a considerable collection of mounted birds, birds’ skins, and birds’ 
eggs, which is now in the Florida State Museum at Gainesville. He was a 
skilled taxidermist and his services were always in demand for such work. 
He mounted a large number of birds for Mr. John Lewis Childs, of Floral 
Park, New York, most of which are now in the Brooklyn (N. Y.) Museum. 

Unfortunately, Mr. Hoyt found little time or inclination to publish the 
results of his observations. Following is a list of the only papers by him 
known to the writer: 

1905. Nesting of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker in Florida (Campephilus 
principalis). The Warbler (2nd Series), I, No. 2, pp. 52-55, 1 plate. 
Nesting of Ward’s Heron (Ardea herodias wardi). Ibid., I, No. 4, 
pp. 114-115. 

1906. Nesting of the Roseate Spoonbill in Florida. Ibid., II, No. 3, 
pp. 58-59. 

1918. The American Robin in its northern migration, Feb. 15, 1915, in 
Pinellas County, Fla. The Odlogist, XX XV, pp. 6, 9; 2 plates. 

Mr. Hoyt is survived by his widow, two sons, and two daughters. 

AH. Hf 


Tue Museum of the California Academy of Sciences has recently 
acquired by gift the entire ornithological and odlogical collection of Messrs. 
Joseph and John W. Mailliard, prominent business men of San Francisco, 
and Fellow and Member respectively of the American Ornithologists’ 
Union. 

The collection contains close to 25,000 specimens, and is primarily a 
research collection. Of bird skins there are more than 11,000 specimens 
representing 777 species; of nests and eggs there are upwards of 13,000 
specimens representing more than 600 species. 

The Mailliard brothers have been interested in birds from their boyhood 
days, and these collections are the result of more than forty years of careful, 
painstaking field work. There are perhaps few, if any, collections that 
have been made with greater care or in which a greater percentage of the 
specimens have real scientific value. In the ornithological collection are 
some of the first reliable records of several species of California birds, 
as well as the only specimens of other species from localities where they 
are now unknown. There are also many albino specimens of unusual 
interest, and several remarkable hybrids. Of certain forms the series are 


eo] Notes and News. 321 


the most complete of any collection in America. In the odlogical collec- 
tion there are large, carefully selected series of species now difficult or 
impossible to obtain. 

The Messrs. Mailliard are members of the Cooper Ornithological Club 
and are both actively interested in the California Academy, John W. 
Mailliard being a trustee and Joseph Mailliard honorary curator of birds 
in the Academy’s Museum. 

The Academy is certainly to be congratulated upon securing this valu- 
able collection, which, added to those already in its possession puts this 
institution in the front rank in the field of ornithology and odlogy in western 
America. 


Now that the war is over and travelling becomes possible again a number 
of collectors are in the field. Roy Chapman Andrews of the Ameri- 
can Museum of Natural History has returned to China to continue his 
work there, and Mr. Klages, the well-known bird collector, is making a 
trip through French Guiana to the Amazon. On February 26, Capt. 
William Beebe left New York with a party, which will establish themselves 
at the Tropical Research Station of the New York Zodélogical Society in 
British Guiana, where work of much importance will be carried on. 


In view of the constantly increasing interest in ornithology and the 
increasing difficulty in obtaining specimens, it seems highly desirable that 
more information should be accessible regarding the extent and character 
of the larger collections of the United States and Canada. The student 
would thus have a better idea as to what material is available while 
museums and individual collectors by making known their desiderata 
would perhaps be enabled to fill their gaps. 

One important collection has just been completely checked up and at our 
request the owner, Mr. J. H. Fleming of Toronto, has kindly given us his 
figures. This is one of the largest private collections and covers the birds 
of the entire world —a most commendable feature. We learn that it 
comprises about 25,000 specimens representing 5,377 species and 1,925 
genera, as recognized in Sharpe’s ‘Hand List.’ When we note that there 
are, according to this authority, some 17,000 species of birds and 2,647 
genera, we realize that Mr. Fleming has about one third of the known 
species and three fourths of the genera represented, the latter being evi- 
dence of the painstaking care that he has exercised in bringing together 
this notable series of specimens. 


In the Philadelphia Zodlogical Garden at the present time is a Naked- 
throated Bell-bird in full ‘‘song” if its peculiar calls may be so termed. 
These vocal efforts resemble exactly the strokes of a hammer on an anvil, 
the peculiar resonance of the ringing metal being perfectly reproduced. 

. There is also a specimen of the curious Kagu (Rhinochetus jubatus) of 


322 Notes and News. Rees 


New Caledonia, the original type of which was sent to the Colonial Exhi- 
bition at Paris in 1860 by Mons. Latour, and described by Jules Verreaux. 
We do not know whether there are any specimens of this bird in any 
American Museum but there are none in either the U.S. National Museum 
or the Philadelphia Academy of Natural Sciences. 

The Kagu is closely related to the Sun Bittern (Hurypyga helias) though 
in appearance it looks more like a small pale gray heron. It is regarded 
as a very ancient and generalized type, with relationship to the Rails and 
Trumpeters. : 

We understand that another specimen is living in the New York Zo6- 
logical Park. 


We learn from ‘The Emu’ that the annual meeting of the Royal Austral- 
asian Ornithologists’ Union was held in Melbourne, December 4, 1918, 
and was attended by eighteen members, exactly as many as were present 
at the business meeting of the A. O. U. in November. The officers elected 
were A. F. Basset Hull of Sydney, President; W. H. D. Le Soeuf, Hon. 
Secretary; Z. Gray, Hon. Treasurer; and Dr. J. A. Leach, Hon. Editor 
of ‘The Emu.’ The R. A. O. U. has had 39 members in military service 
of whom 5 lost their lives during the past year. The Union maintains a 
room at Temple Court in Melbourne where it keeps its library and col- 
lections including the celebrated White and Austin collections of Australian 
birds’ eggs. Well attended conversaziones are held at its room on the first 
Wednesday in each month and quarterly meetings at the National Museum. 
The report of the treasurer shows that the assets of the Union amount.to 
over $9000. 


Tue collection of birds in the U. 8S. National Museum has recently 
passed the 200,000 mark. This collection has doubled since 1884 when the 
number of specimens reached 100,000 (see ‘The Auk,’ 1884, p. 403). In 
this connection it is interesting to recall that the British Museum collection 
was said to have contained 500,000 specimens ten years ago (Ibis, 9th ser., 
II. Jub. Suppl. p. 4, 1909). 


Tue Treasurer reports that less than forty copies of the last edition of 
the ‘Check-List of North American Birds,’ published in 1910, now remain 
on hand. Members who have not secured copies should do so at once as 
libraries are constantly ordering the book and the stock will doubtless soon 
be exhausted. It will probably be several years before another edition 
of the ‘Check-List’ is issued. 


Av the recent session of Congress two new National Parks were estab- 
lished on areas previously set aside as National Monuments. These parks 
are the Grand Canyon in Arizona and the Lafayette National Park on 
Mt. Desert Island on the coast of Maine. The latter reservation was pre- 
viously known as the Sieur de Monts National Monument. This action 


Bei | Notes and News. BAR 


will insure greater protection of the wild life and we hope will result in the 
publication at an early date of information concerning the birds of these 
interesting regions. 


GeocrapHic Distrinution or A. O. U. MemBersuip.— As shown 
by the list published in this number of ‘The Auk’ the A. O. U. now has 
members in all of the states except three (Arkansas, Delaware and Mis- 
sissippi), and also in Alaska, Hawaii, the Philippines and Samoa, as well 
as in all of the provinces of Canada except Alberta and Nova Scotia. 

The foreign members, known as Honorary and Corresponding Fellows, 
number 85 and are widely distributed in all parts of the world. In America 
they are located in Cuba, Mexico, Costa Rica, Colombia, Brazil, and 
Argentina; in Europe in all of the principal countries except Norway, 
Portugal, Spain, Switzerland, Turkey and the Balkan States; and in 
Africa in South Rhodesia and Transvaal. The Union also has represen- 
tatives in Ceylon, Japan, the Federated Malay States, British Papua, 
South Australia, Tasmania and Victoria.— T. 8. P. 


Tue American Game Protective Association, the sportsmen’s national 
organization, has done excellent work in branding as erroneous an Associ- 
ated Press Dispatch to the effect that the Supreme Court at Washington 
has declared the Federal Migratory bird law unconstitutional. From their 
statement the country has been informed that ‘‘the so-called Federal 
Migratory bird law was repealed on July 3, 1917, when the President signed 
the Canadian treaty enabling act. The new measure which superseded 
the old one is a better and bigger law with exactly the same object in view. 
It provides what the former law lacked, an efficient machinery for its 
enforcement, and the governments of this country and Canada are now 
squarely united in the protection of all the birds of the continent north of 
the Rio Grande. 

“What happened at Washington was that the solicitor-general asked to 
have dismissed his own motion before the Supreme Court, which was to 
test the constitutionality of the original migratory bird law. It was no 
use arguing the case, because there is no longer any Weeks-McLean law. 

“The federal regulations, therefore, which absolutely protect in this 
country the birds which are valuable to agriculture and which make open 
seasons for the migratory birds which are shot for sport, are still in effect 
and the Federal Department of Justice will vigorously prosecute any vio- 
lations of these regulations.”’ 


W. L. McAteErE wishes to announce that he has undertaken as a hobby 
the preparation of a dictionary of vernacular names applied to A. O. U. 
checklist birds. As the project involves the examination of practically 
the whole ornithological literature of America, the main purpose of this 
announcement is to elicit information as to whether the field is clear. It 


324 Notes and News. [April 


would be a great waste of time to have the same ground covered by more 
than one person. 

Mr. McAtee has been collecting data of this nature for many years, — 
and has published two glossaries of unusual bird names. He has also 
recently had the good fortune to receive for examination, through the 
courtesy of Mrs. Gurdon Trumbull and Mr. Samuel Scoville, Jr., the 
manuscript notes prepared by Gurdon Trumbull, for a second edition of 
his ‘Names and Portraits of Birds.” Still more recently, Mrs. Trumbull 
has with the greatest generosity turned over to him this book together 
with all of Mr. Trumbull’s miscellaneous notes on the habits and names 
of birds. This material will eventually be deposited in the Manuscript 
Division of the Library of Congress. Mr. McAtee will welcome suggestions 
relating to the whole project, and contributions, especially of unusual 
local names of birds. 


Tue Delaware Valley Ornithological Club is endeavoring to collect all 
existing data bearing upon the birds of Eastern Pennsylvania, New Jersey 
and Delaware. Information relative to any manuscript lists of early 
migration records, or published matter in out of the way places, will be 
gratefully received. 


Tue Delaware Valley Ornithological Club held its twenty-ninth annual 
meeting at the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia in January, 
1919. Officers elected were President, J. Fletcher Street, Vice-President, 
George H. Stuart 3d, Secretary Julian K. Potter and Treasurer, Samuel C. 
Palmer. Thirteen meetings were held during the year with an average at- 
tendance of twenty-two. Twenty-seven members entered the National 
Service during the war and one, Archibald Benners, Ist Lieut. Marines, 
was killed July 3, 1918. 


American Croitalgists’ Unio 


Check-List of North American 
Birds 


Last Edition, 1910 


Cloth, 8vo, pp. 480 and two maps of North America, 
one a colored, faunal zone map, and one a locality map. 
The first authoritative and complete list of North 


_ American Birds published since the second edition of 


the Check-List in 1895. The ranges of species and 
geographical races have been carefully revised and 
greatly extended, and the names conform to the latest 
tulings of the A. O. U. Committee on Nomenclature. 
The numbering of the species is the same as in the 
second edition. Price, including postage, $3.00. 


POCKET EDITION 
A pocket, Check-List (3: by 52 inches) of North 
American Birds with only the numbers and the scientific 
and popular names. Alternate pages blank for the 
insertion of notes. Flexible covers. Price, including 
postage, 30 cents. 


Address JONATHAN DWIGHT 
134 W. 7Ist St. New York City 


PUBLICATIONS OF THE 


AMERIGAN ORNITHOLOGISTS’ UNION 


FOR SALE AT THE FOLLOWING PRICES: 


The Auk. Complete set, Volumes I-XXXV, (1884-1918) in origi- 
nal covers, $117.00. Volumes I-VI are sold only with complete 
sets, other volumes, $3.00 each; 75 cents for single numbers. _ 


Index to The Auk (Vols. I-XXVII, 1884-1900) and Bulletin of the 
Nuttall Ornithological Club (Vols. I-VIII, 1876-1883), 8vo, pp. 
vii + 426, 1908. Cloth, $3.75 post-paid; paper, $3.25. 


Index to The Auk (Vols. XXVIII-XXXVII, 1901-1910), 8vo, pp. 
xviii +250, 1915. Cloth, $3.00; paper, $2.00. 


Check-List of North American Birds. Third edition, revised. 
1910. Cloth, 8vo, pp. 426, and 2 maps. $3.00. Second edition, 
revised, 1895. Cloth, 8vo, pp. xi + 372. $1.15. Original edition — 
1886. Out of print. ft 


Abridged Check-List of North American Birds. 1889. (Abridgedll 
and revised from the original edition). Paper, 8vo, pp. 71, printed 
on one side of the page. 25 cents. 


Pocket Check-List of North American Birds. (Abridged from , 
the third edition). Flexible cover, 3g X 5$ inches. 30 cents. 


Code of Nomenclature. Revised edition, 1908. Paper, 8vo, pp. ( 
Ixxxv. 50 cents. 
Original edition, 1892. Paper, Svo, pp. iv + 72. 25 cents. 


A. O. U. Official Badge. An attractive gold and blue enamel 
pin, with Auk design, for use at meetings or on other 
occasions. Post-paid 50 cents. 


Address JONATHAN DWIGHT 


134 W. 7lIst St., New York, N. Y. 


; | y 7 ie 


The Cosmos Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. 


Sf 
it 


es CONTINUATION OF THE il 
| 
Tivol, XLivS BULLETIN OF THE NUTTALL ORNITHOLOGICAL CLUB ? y,ixxx'yj 


‘The Auk 


H Quarterly Journal of Ornithology 


Vol. XXXVI JULY, 1919 | No. 3 


i 


PUBLISHED BY 


“The American Ornithologists’ Union 


CAMBRIDGE, MASS. 


Entered as second-class mail matter in the Post Office at Boston, Mass. 
“ Acceptance for mailing at special rate of postage provided for in Section 
1108, Act of October 3, 1917, authorized on September 23, 1918.” 


CONTENTS 


P 
Some Nores ON THE DRUMMING OF THE RuFFED Grouse. By dH. E. Tuttle. 
(Plate XI.) 


‘ 
‘Tur SINGING TREE,’ 


’ on How NEAR TO THE NEST DO THE MALE Birps SING? 
By H. Mousley f 4 ia 


Tae pany History or a Duck Hawk. By Viola F. Richards. (Plates XII- 


A Couony oF Cape Cop Piping Piover. By C. A. Robbins . a . 
Buacxk Duck NeEstTING IN Boston Pusiic GarpDEN. By Horace W. Wright . 
THREE INTERESTING GREAT HoRNED OwLs FROM NEw ENGLAND. By Glover M. 


. 


Allen . ‘ A £ A : ; P s ‘ x i m : 
VARIATION IN THE GALAPAGOS ALBATROSS. By Leverett Mills Loomis. (Plates ; 

XIV-XVI.) ¢ A . . A ; 5 S a 7 ae 
AvupuBon’s BispLiogrRAPHY. By Francis H. Herrick 4 : : : «| SST 
Some SuMMER Birps oF LiBeRTY County, Groroia. By W. J. Erichsen . Met! 


A THREE Monrus’ List OF THE Brirps or PINELLAS County, FuLoripa. By 


Major Clifford H. Pangburn . , Siomine : : a 393 
Notes on NortH AMERICAN Birps. VIII. By Harry C. Oberholser > 406 
Ture GrocRapHic Races or Hedymeles melanocephalus Swainson. By Harry C. 

Oberholser ; . 5 : > : A 4 is A : s 408 


GENERAL Notes.— The Generic Name of the Gannets, 417; Polysticta versus Stellaria, 
418; Megalestris versus Catharacta, 418; Destructive Invasion by an Australian 
Rail, 418; Sarcidiornis sylvicola in Venezuela, 419; Occurrence of the Red Phalarope 
in Pennsylvania, 419; The Status of the Genus Archibuteo Brehm, 420; Golden 
Eagle at East Moriches, N. Y., 421; Arctic Three-toed Woodpecker at Southampton, 
Mass., 421; Blue Jay again in Jefferson Co., Colorado, 422; Song of the Canada Jay 
422; Evening Grosbeak in New Jersey, 423; The Pine Grosbeak (Pinicola enucleator 
leucura) in Northwestern New Jersey, 423; Early Occurrence of the Red-breasted 
Nuthatch in New Jersey, 423; The Range of the Short-tailed Mountain Chickadee, 
(Penthestes gambeli abbreviatus Grinnell), 424; Note on Audubon’s Labrador Trip, 
424; Destruction of Sea Birds in Labrador, 427; Specific Names in the Nominative 
Case, 427; Editions of Baird, Cassin and Lawrence's ‘Birds of North America,’ 428; 
bse eauone on the Shifting Range, Migration and Economic Value of the Bobo- 


Recent Lirerature.—‘A Practical Handbook of British Birds,’ 432; Harris’s 
‘Birds of the Kansas City Region,’ 433; Baileys’ ‘Wild Animals of Glacier National 
Park,’ 434; Moseley’s ‘Trees, Stars and Birds,’ 484; Miss Ball’s ‘A Year with the 
Birds,’ 435; Gilmore’s ‘Birds of Field, Forest and Park,’ 436; Stephens on the Birds 
of San Diego County, California, 437; Swarth on New Subspecies of Passerella 
iliaca, 437; Annual Report of the State Ornithologist of Massachusetts, 438; Noble 
on the Birds of Newfoundland, 438; Chubb on South American Birds, 438; The 
Ornithological Journals, 439; Ornithological Articles in Other Journals, 442; Publi- 
cations Received, 344. 


Se ONDE EE Further Note on Identifications (Characters versus Geography), 
446. 


Nores anp News.— Obituary: Dr. Louis Brazil, 449; Frederick Bridgham McKechnie, 
449: Organization of the American Society of Mammalogists, 451; Gaspe Bird Re- 
serves in Quebec Province, 451; Correction on Townsend’s ‘ Birds of Essex County,’ 
451; Birds in Museums of Warsaw, 451; New Species of African Birds, 452: New 
Members of B. O. U., 452; Memorial to Salvin and Godman, 452; Odlogical Mu- 
seums in California, 452; ‘American Museum Journal,’ 453; ‘ The Passenger Pigeon 
in Pennsylvania, 453; Thirty-seventh Stated Meeting of the A. O. U., 453. 


‘THE AUK,’ published quarterly as the Organ of the AMERICAN ORNITHOL- 
ogists’ Unton, is edited, beginning with volume for 1912, by Dr. WirmER STONE. 

Trrms:— $3.00 a year, including postage, strictly in advance. Single num- 
bers, 75 cents. Free to Honorary Fellows, and to Fellows, Members, and Asso- 
ciates of the A. O. U. not in arrears for dues. 


Ture OFFICE OF PUBLICATION IS AT 30 BoytsTon St., CamBRiIDGE, BosTON, 
Mass. 


Subscriptions may also be addressed to Dr. JonaTHan Dwiaxt, Business | 
Manager, 134, W. 7ist St., New Yorx, N. Y. Foreign Subscribers may 
obtain ‘Tur Aux’ through Wiraersy & Co., 326, High Hotsorn, Lonpon, W. C. 


All articles and communications intended for publication and all books 
and publications for notice, may be sent to DR. WITMER STONE, 
Acapremy or NaTURAL ScIENCES, LOGAN SquaRE, PHILADELPHIA, Pa. 


Manuscripts for general articles must await their turn for publication if others 
are already on file but they must be in the editor’s hands at least six weeks, before 
the date of issue of the number for which they are intended, and manuscripts © 
for ‘ General Notes’, ‘ Recent Literature’, etc., not later than the first of the month 
preceding the date of the number in which it is desired they shall appear. 


a | 
cm 3 


' 


alld 


> 


o. 


\ 


EUAN UIKe VOle ee PLATE XI. 


Photo. by H. E. Tuttle 


RuFFED GROUSE DRUMMING 


THRE eAUIK : 


A QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF 


ORNITHOLOGY. 


WoL, XXXVI. Juty, 1919. 


No: 3: 


SOME NOTES ON THE DRUMMING OF THE RUFFED 
GROUSE. 


DS) ie = ees Das BO Bi WB 


Plate XI. 


SoME controversies die hard, and the discussion of the drumming 
of the Ruffed Grouse is one of them. Happily the observations 
made by Professor Hodge on his domesticated Grouse settled many 
mooted points, authenticated the testimony of accurate observers, 
and lopped the hydra heads of many legends that had long abused 
the popular intelligence. These notes, taken from my field diaries, 
are not offered as containing much that is new, nor as a final word 
on a subject long under discussion, but rather as the faithful 
record of a quest pursued. 

Upper PENINSULA, Huron Mountain, Micuican, April 7-18, 
1910. After crawling some distance toward the log on which he 
was strutting, I watched a cock Grouse drum at a distance of twenty 
feet. When about to drum the feet were shifted uneasily for a 
moment, as if to get a firmer grip of the log, the tail was spread 
and held in a horizontal position. At the beginning of the first 
wing beat the tail was dropped, and acted as a brace, across or 
along the log, according to the way the bird was standing. There 
were three quick preliminary wing beats, then the breast and neck 
were swelled perceptibly, the feathers on the throat being “ruffed”’ 

325 


326 TurtLe, Drumming of the Ruffed Grouse. ine 


the wrong way, the ruffs were slightly distended, and the first 
loud wing beat was begun. After drumming the tail was held 
erect for a moment and the ruffs were spread — a beautiful pose. 

On moving my hand from behind the stump where I was con- 
cealed, he threw up his ruffs, spread his tail into a fan, puffed out 
his breast, trailed his wings, and with lowered crest walked up the 
log, turning and hissing. Afterwards he walked off the log and 
began feeding. 

I watched this bird and one other drum more than a dozen 
times. There were variations in the strutting and in the raising 
or lowering of the crest, but otherwise the performances were 
identical. In this region drumming cocks were numerous, the 
logs on which they drummed being in most cases not ten feet off 
the trails. The birds were tame and easily approached. 

SimsBuRY, CONNECTICUT, April 23-24, 1910. I spent the night 
of the twenty-third and morning of the twenty-fourth on the ground 
about one hundred yards from a well used drum log. I had set 
up my camera during the late afternoon, and because the bird 
was too shy to be approached by crawling, I adopted the expedient 
of sleeping at the end of my shutter thread. 

The Grouse drummed from one-fifteen in the morning till after 
two o'clock, when I went to sleep, and was still drumming at three 
minute intervals when I woke at four. He may have rested while 
I slept, but I woke to the sound of his drumming. He drummed 
twelve times in thirty minutes, from one-fifteen to one-forty-five. 
It was rather weird to hear a Grouse drumming in the dark. A 
bright moon was shining, but the air was misty. A Whippoorwill 
sang. I woke again at six o’clock, but the Grouse had gone. 

Smuspury, May, 1910. During May in the woods beyond the 
hill swamp I crawled to the upturned end of a tree behind which a 
Grouse was drumming. After the bird had drummed three times 
I ventured to peek around the earthwork and was surprised to 
find the bird’s tail braced across the log about ten inches from my 
face. The temptation to grab it and tweak out a feather almost 
overcame me with laughter, but I was eager to hear the bird drum 
again. I was disappointed at being behind him, where I could 
not watch his wings and breast, but it was obvious that this was 
the only position where I could hope to remain unseen. As it 


oe ee Turrite, Drumming of the Ruffed Grouse. a2 


was I retired behind the breastwork. He drummed again. The 
sound is comparatively faint when heard at close range, and difficult 
to describe. The silky rustle of the stiff wing feathers on the air 
is almost louder than the first “beat.” “ Fiffump fump, Fffump — 
Ffump — Fump—.” The first three, which are very faint, can 
best be imitated by accentuating the “f” sound as the breath is 
expelled, like an exhaust pipe. 

Suddenly he became aware of my presence, and with an ex- 
plosive series of “Quit-quits” he flew to the low branch of a tree, 
about six feet above my head. There he continued to scold for 
some time, until grown tired of watching him, I rose to my feet, 
and he rocketed through the second growth like a bullet. 

It has always been my experience that if I have been discovered 
by a Grouse, when lying at full length on the ground, the bird, 
though alarmed or annoyed, rarely takes flight, but usually in- 
dulges in argument. 

Smspury, April 15, 1918. Today I stalked a cock Grouse that 
was drumming on the old toboggan slide log, but as I made my last 
advance he saw me at the same instant that I saw him. He stood 
stiffly, just as he was when he ceased to drum, all five feathers of 
his crest separately erect and forward, his ruffs showing plainly, 
so that I could even see the metallic green edges of the plumes, 
but he was evidently worried, and turned his head slowly away. 
Then without warning he whirred off, to alight on the side hill 
about a gun shot distant. 

I noted particularly how short the bill seems when the crest is 
erect, as compared with the longer appearance that it has when the 
feathers lie flat to the head, as in the brooding female. In the 
afternoon I set up my camera within four feet of the log in the hope 
of a chance shot on the following day. 

April 16. No luck with the Grouse. He either did not drum, 
or drummed elsewhere. 

April 17. I secured a very fair photograph of the cock Grouse. 
The morning was overcast and the light very poor, and as I had 
set the shutter for a fiftieth part of a second I did not expect to be 
able to distinguish much on the plate; but, though underexposed, 
the bird shows up plainly and in sharp focus. He drummed just 
before I reached the end of my shutter thread (about forty yards 


328 TurrLe, Drumming of the Ruffed Grouse. [rae 


from the camera and concealed from the bird by a little rise of 
ground) and I spent ten anxious minutes wondering if he had heard 
me and become alarmed, or whether he had seen the thread tremble 
as I took hold of it. At the three preliminary drum beats I slowly 
pulled the thread, but there was so much slack to take up that the 
shutter did not go off till just before the “roll.” 

April 18-May 1. A series of failures followed. On two occa- 
sions the shutter was sprung during the night, either by a branch 
blown against the thread by the wind, or by some one who lke 
myself enjoys wandering from the beaten path. Rain precluded 
two other attempts, and the Grouse, becoming shy, sought an- 
other log some five hundred yards to the east, where after fol- 
lowing his booming challenge I discovered him during the last 
days of April. The situation was more favorable to photography, 
for the log lay at the top of a ridge, broadside to the east, and 
caught whatever rays of light penetrated the second growth when 
the sun rose over the gap in the hills. After one partially suecess- 
ful attempt with a thread nearly one hundred yards long, and two 
failures, I decided to pursue another method. If the Grouse 
would accept a blind, I should be able to choose the pose I most 
desired, suit the time of the exposure to the light conditions, and 
observe the drumming at fairly close range. I therefore set up 
and concealed my camera about four feet from the position on the 
log where the Grouse was accustomed to drum, and pitched my 
blind some twenty-five feet to the east. 

May 2. At a quarter before four (sun time) I set out for the 
second growth ridge and the drum log of the Ruffed Grouse. The 
moon was still shining when I left the house, and I could see my 
shadow by its light as I crossed the home field. Robins were 
singing and an occasional Red-winged Blackbird flew overhead. 
Early as I was, I was too late, for with a whistled alarm note the 
Grouse flushed from the log as I made my way through the woods 
toward the blind. After a wait of forty minutes I heard him step- 
ping over the dry leaves, and shortly after, the four preliminary 
wing beats boomed out. Up to this time I had not dared to move 
sufficiently to glance through the peek hole which I had provided, 
but now I did so, and saw the Grouse sitting hunched up in a little 
ball upon the log. 


eee XT) TurrLtn, Drumming of the Ruffed Grouse. 329 


I had set the shutter for a fifth of a second exposure and had not 
planned to take the bird as he drummed, but the temptation was 
too strong, and as there was light enough (at five minutes after 
five) I waited till I saw the wings flash out in the first beat, and 
then pulled the shutter thread. His wings thumped twice while 
the shutter opened and closed, so that I had little hope of a clear- 
cut image’on the plate, but the developed negative shows with 
what steadiness the bird holds himself during the drumming, for 
while the wings are blurred, the head is sharp and shows no trace 
of movement. 

The Grouse preened himself twice, running his mandibles over 
his ruffs, the feathers of his rump and each long tail feather. Sev- 
eral times he turned about as if to go, and then like one overcome 
by an irresistible temptation, he would face about quickly, brace 
his feet on the accustomed piece of bark, and begin to drum. 
He left the log at six o’clock. 

The performance did not differ essentially from others that I 
had witnessed, except that this bird took four preliminary wing 
beats instead of three. His crest was erect throughout the drum- 
ming, the ruffs partly, but not prominently, displayed. One of the 
Michigan birds whose drumming I observed, did not elevate his 
crest until the conclusion of the “roll.” 

May 3. Although I entered the blind at three-forty-five, the 
Grouse flushed from the log. If he roosted there he must have 
gone to roost late, as I did not finish setting up my second camera 
till after seven o’clock of the night before. 

As I sat in my blind waiting for the Grouse to return, a Whip- 
poorwill sang and either this Grouse or another drummed in the 
birch glade below the ridge. A Chewink called. There was a 
chorus of Robin’s voices which almost drowned the hymn of a 
Hermit Thrush, but could not dampen the ardor of a Chickadee. 

The Grouse did not return till four-fifty, when I heard his heavy 
footfall, and the scratching noise made by his toe nails on the log as 
he ascended it. Walking a few steps along the log until he came to 
the spot where a loose piece of bark offered a convenient foothold, 
he struck a pose. The wings flashed out, hung limp, and flashed 
out again. There was a pause in which he seemed to gird his loins 
for the blows that were to follow, then beat followed beat till the 


330 TurTLe, Drumming of the Ruffed Grouse. [hae 
outlines of the wings were lost in the ecstacy of the “roll.” I 
waited till five-fifteen for my first picture, and on the first sign of 
uneasiness on his part (significant of the fact that he was about to 
drum), I made the thread taut. At the first shift of his wings, I 
pulled. He saw the movement of the thread and held the pose 
while the shutter clicked at one fifth of a second. I took the second 
picture with the camera set for a side view, at five-thirty, selecting 
almost the same pose. He again detected the movement and held 
his position. As soon as the shutter clicked he continued to drum. 
He seemed to take only a passing interest in the scream of a Red- 
shouldered Hawk, but manifested an unusual degree of pleasure 
or curiosity in the song of a Bobolink as it flew overhead. He 
cocked his head on one side and apparently watched the course of 
its flight. He noticed the slightest noises and would turn his 
head at the scratching of my pencil as I wrote up these notes, though 
the blind was twenty-five feet distant from the log. Occasionally, 
in the intervals between drummings, his breast puffed out and his 
head shot forward, as if he were being relieved of gas on his stomach 
or had the hiccoughs. (This happened once on both mornings.) 
He drummed every seven minutes, though the interval was some- 
times longer, particularly if he had heard a suspicious sound. 
When alarmed he drew himself up and stretched his neck to its full 
height. Sometimes before drumming he acted as if he were about 
to leave, turned about and looked for a convenient descent to the 
ground. Then, as if reluctant to go, or as if determined on just 
one more performance, he turned, braced himself, and began to 
drum. 

May 8. J arrived in the blind at two-fifty, and began my silent 
vigil. The Grouse appeared at four-twenty-five, hurried along 
the log, as if late for an appointment, and at once began to drum. 
He drummed four times by four-thirty, and seven times by four- 
forty-two. Just before the seventh time he dropped off the log, 
and I was afraid that I had lost my chance to photograph him, 
but he immediately returned to his post and drummed. I think 
he picked up a grub or some live food that had caught his eye. 

After drumming the tail is flung up stiffly fora moment. I have 
never observed a more alert and watchful bird, and he seemed even 
more watchful on this morning than on previous occasions. At 


. 


| TuTtLe, Drumming of the Ruffed Grouse. Bo 


five-thirty I took my first picture, from the front, springing the 
shutter just after the four preliminary wing beats had been fol- 
lowed by the first two of the faster series. The wings moved once 
or twice during the exposure, which resulted in a failure, being 
badly blurred. At five-thirty-two I made my second exposure, 
from the side, just after the Grouse had finished drumming. I 
thought that he moved, but the plate showed that he did not, and 
this exposure proved to be one of the best that I have made. 

The Grouse had drummed twenty-seven times when the rain 
began at six-seven. I was curious to see if he would weather it 
out or take shelter. He drummed again, the ruffs well out, rising 
and falling on the pulsing breeze caused by the wings. The leaves 
in front of the log are frequently scattered by the force of the final 
outburst. He drummed again. It was raining in earnest now, 
and he was drumming in the pouring rain. At six-thirty he left 
the log and walked directly toward the blind, pausing about two 
feet away to turn and round it. He picked and ate the new green 
leaves of a blueberry bush, his beak making a most perceptible 
snap as he pulled them off. He walked as I have always seen 
Grouse walk when unconscious of observation or danger, the head 
carried quite low, the tail folded and horizontal. His crest of 
course was lowered. After plucking the blueberry bush he began 
pulling at a laurel with which I had concealed the blind. He then 
walked up and pecked at the material of the tent itself. After 
circling the blind, still within two foot range, he returned to his 
log and at once began to drum. I could wait no longer, and re- 
treated from the rear opening, keeping the blind between me and 
the bird until I was so far away that he should not be greatly alarmed 
when he first saw me. On catching sight of me he crouched quickly, 
his head low. For perhaps a minute he trusted to his immobility, 
then realizing that he was seen, his head shot up and he began to 
walk slowly down the log, his tail flirting nervously at each step. 
Taking a final look at me, he dropped off the log on the far side and 
immediately flushed with a roar of wings. 

May 9. I crawled into my blind at three-thirty. Starlight, 
windy, cold and clear. The Grouse flushed from the log. Whip- 
poorwills were noisy. The Grouse reconnoitred for an hour, 
walking all around the blind. Finally satisfied that the coast was 


302 Torri, Drumming of the Ruffed Grouse. [fae 


clear, he abandoned his stealthy countermarches and long motion- 
less delays, and hurried with careless steps to the log which seemed 
to draw him like a magnet. 

I waited till five-ten for my first shot at one-fifth of a second, 
selecting the moment just after drumming, in the hope of catching 
him with his tail erect. At five-twenty with full sunlight I pulled 
the second thread at one twenty-fifth, endeavoring to picture him 
during the pause at the end of the four preliminary wing beats. 
(The first picture was successful, but the plate in the second had 
been badly fogged, possibly owing to a defective plate holder. 
There was no image on it.) 

At six o’clock the Grouse was in full sunlight, bright enough for 
a fast exposure. He scratched his head with his toe, a pose that 
I should like to have caught. If luck had been with me, an ex- 
posure of a fiftieth of a second would have caught him at the end 
of a wing stroke, as there was a pause of slight duration at the end 
of each beat. He preened himself, then took one wing beat, and 
as if unsatisfied with his stance, turned about. The Grouse takes 
the first beat after partially squatting as if to steady himself. He 
then draws himself erect and takes four, the last of which often 
has as much force as the ones that follow. Here there is a slight 
pause, the upper breast is swelled, and the bird stands even more 
erect, the body being almost perpendicular, the head thrust for- 
ward. In this position the Grouse slightly resembles a pouter 
pigeon, and suggests Browning’s description of Napoleon before 
Ratisbon, “with neck out-thrust, you fancy how —”’ The next 
beat comes with increased volume and is followed by about twenty 
strokes in ever quickening succession till the “roll.” This is made 
up of tén or possibly twenty beats, rolled into a crescendo that 
frequently stirs the leaves ten feet in front of the drum log. At the 


‘ 


end of the roll the bird stands on tiptoe, the ruffs are prominently 
displayed, the tail is erect at an angle of forty-five degrees and 
gradually subsides, first to a horizontal position and then to a 
position resting on the log, the ruffs slide back into their normal 
place, and the small feathers on the throat, which are ruffed the 
wrong way during drumming, become smooth. 

The Grouse now hopped off the log on the far side, but the temp- 
tation was too strong, and he returned, facing west for a short 


neha TurrLte, Drumming of the Ruffed Grouse. 333 
space. He then shook himself and hopped off the log again, mak- 
ing his way rather noisily through the woods. 

May 12. I moved the blind to within six feet of the drum log. 
If it is too close to be useful for photography, I shall at least have 
had the experience of watching a Grouse drum at that range. 

May 13. J arrived in the blind at two-forty-five. The Grouse 
was heard walking about at four and reconnoitred till four-thirty. 
He then came to the log, manifesting an unusual degree of caution 
and showed an attitude of great alarm after drumming once, 
crouching in an attempt to see through the peep hole of the blind. 
He then drummed again. At five-thirty-five I attempted my 
first picture, but the shutter thread had become tangled with one 
of the twigs on the top of the blind, and the Grouse hearing the 
noise and seeing the movement, instantly stopped drumming and 
sneaked off the log. I waited till seven, hoping that he would 
return, which he did. I took one picture with the camera in front 
at one hundreth of a second. The light was very dull, but I 
thought it was worth the chance. I tried again to pull the other 
shutter off, without success. The last time that the Grouse 
drummed he failed to get a good grip on the log, with the amusing 
result that the finale of the roll shifted him off his stance and 
whirled him half way around. (The picture was a bad failure, the 
plate being fogged and the exposure much too fast. It did show 
that one hundreth part of a second was fast enough to catch the 
moving wings.) 

May 15. Dawn was not yet gray in the east when I stumbled 
through the second growth in the darkness and sought my green 
denim bush. The hour was two-fifty. The Grouse was more 
suspicious than usual and did not come to the log till four-forty. 
He drummed once, then left the log and came toward the blind. 
After walking some ten feet behind the blind, he returned to the 
log and drummed. An interval, then he drummed again. He was 
uneasy however, and soon dropped off the log, and passing close 
to the blind, departed to the rear. After ten minutes he began 
drumming on a log twenty yards to the east. I think the blind’s 
proximity to the log was too great an obstacle, and in the after- 
noon I moved it back to a position twenty feet away. 

May 16. I reached the blind at two-fifty. The Grouse spent 


334 Turritn, Drumming of the Ruffed Grouse. [sie 
some time in coming to the log. He arrived on the scene at four- 
forty, flying down from a tree near the blind. At five-twenty-five 
I took my first picture, showing a watchful pose. He became 
alarmed, watched the camera for some time, and finally left the 
log at five-thirty-five. 

May 21. Three o’clock found me in my blind, and at three-ten 
it began to rain. Rain fell for an hour, dwindled to an occasional 
drop, but began again at four-forty when the Grouse appeared. 
He drummed throughout a hard rain at longer intervals than usual. 
He left the blind at five-thirty, passing within two feet of my eye 
at the peep hole. I left the blind at six and picked up my cameras. 
The Oven-Birds sang their flight song before dawn. 


It is easier to venture an opinion as to how the drumming sound 
is not produced than it is to make an affirmative answer to a ques- 
tion as to its source, and there has been so much discussion that I 
hesitate to make any unqualified statement at all. My observa- 
tions, however, and what photographs I have been able to obtain, 
only confirm the testimony of Professor C. F. Hodge, who had the 
advantage of studying tame Grouse, and whose photographs of 
the drumming of these birds cover a series of poses taken from the 
front, the side and the rear. His observations and his photographs 
satisfied him that however the drum beat was produced, it was not 
caused by the wings striking together behind the bird’s back. I 
do not think anyone who watched the drumming at close range, 
and from the rear, could be persuaded that the wings struck to- 
gether behind the bird’s back, while I am equally sure that observa- 
tions made from the front or the side might easily give rise to such 
an opinion. 

What is perhaps the best series of pictures of the drumming of a 
wild cock Grouse was published in ‘Forest and Stream’ for April, 
1918. The author, Mr. Frederick K. Vreeland, during the course 
of the article describes the opening wing beat as follows: “A slight 
elevation of the wings and then they were thrown sharply back- 
ward, striking together behind the bird’s back with a deep soft 
‘Boom,’ returning almost instantly to the starting position, but 
with the feathers somewhat spread.”” Further: “But I did suc- 
ceed in getting one shot which, while it shows the wings only as a 


Ne all TurrLte, Drumming of the Ruffed Grouse. 550 
blur, I think will prove to the most skeptical that they did actually 
strike together behind the drummer’s back.’ The photograph 
which is offered in proof of this statement is one taken from the 
side, so that the blur of the moving wings is shown as extending 
beyond the upright body of the bird and for about a wing’s breadth 
to the rear. But how could any photograph taken from the side 
and showing the wings in profile prove whether or not the wings 
struck together behind the bird’s back? The only photograph 
which could prove the contention, or disprove it, without the 
corroborative evidence of observation, would be one taken from 
directly, or almost directly, behind the bird, the result of an ex- 
posure sufficiently long to record more than one wing beat. This 
would of necessity show as much blur in the space between the 
wings as elsewhere, if the wings came together behind the back to 
produce the beat. In regard to other photographic evidence, 
Professor A. A. Allen of Cornell University to whom I wrote con- 
cerning a statement that he made in ‘American Forestry’ (to be 
quoted later), very rightly contends, I think, that the exposure, 
unless it be a very slow one, records but a single stroke of the wings, 
and that the wings may thus be shown in any position without 
definitely proving that because they are not shown to touch that 
they do not do so. The photograph which accompanies this 
article, the result of an exposure made just before the “roll,” is 
open to this objection, but if it fails of being in itself conclusive 
testimony to the assertion that the wings in drumming do not strike 
together behind the bird’s back, it demonstrates the futility of 
photographic evidence other than such as I have hypothecated 
above (i. e. the result of an exposure taken from the rear and 
slow enough to record more than one wing beat). 

Here, I think that observation must lend its weight, and I am so 
far convinced by my own experience that the wings do not strike 
together to produce the drum beat that I should be astonished if 
other observers who had watched as many or more performances 
than I have, and at close range, should succeed in demonstrating 
by sach a photograph as I have suggested that the wings do actually 
strike together behind the back of the drumming bird. Should it 
be proved that the wings do meet, it would still be difficult to prove 
that the sound was produced by their contact, rather than by the 
forward stroke against the air. 


336 Turritn, Drumming of the Ruffed Grouse. [fae 


Professor A. A. Allen, writing in ‘American Forestry’ for August, 
1918, describes the drumming as follows: “The drumming sound, 
which begins with a measured thump-thump-thump — and ends 
with a loud whirring sound, like the muffled sound of a motorcycle 
engine —is made by the cock beating the air with his wings. Brac- 
ing himself on the log with his tail and standing erect, he first 
strikes his wings together behind his back producing the thump- 
thump-thump noise of a big drum.” 

In reply to my letter asking how he had arrived at this conclusion 
he says,— “I have never had the opportunity to watch the grouse 
at sufficiently close range to determine this for myself and am frank 
to confess that I based the statement upon the photographs and 
description which appeared in ‘Forest and Stream’ and in the ‘ Bulle- 
tin of the American Game Protective Association,’ where the bird 
was watched at close range and observations were apparently made 
for determining this very point. I was also influenced by the 
similarity of those first few notes to the sounds produced by pigeons 
and long-eared owls, which are, I believe, without doubt, made by 
striking the wings together over the back.” 

The article on which Professor Allen based his statement (Mr. 
Vreeland’s in ‘Forest and Stream’ for April, 1918) and the photo- 
graph on which this contention was based I have already discussed. 
The question of similarity of sound is interesting, but, for want of 
observation in relation to it, is of doubtful value in determining 
the facts. We come back to such observation as shall be considered 
authoritative. Of Mr. Vreeland’s, putting aside the question of 
photographic proof already referred to, I can only add, that while 
he witnessed several performances at close range and secured the 
best series of photographs of the drumming that I have seen, his 
observations, as recorded, were made, as were his photographs, 
from the front of the drumming bird and from. the side, positions 
from which it is well nigh impossible to discern whether the wings 
strike together or not. Somewhere the truth lies hid, and my pur- 
pose in reopening an old discussion is that others may aid in dis- 
covering it. When the negative side of the discussion has been 
settled, however, there still remains the question — if not by this 
means, how else? 

To say, on the positive side, that the sound of the drumming is 


TurtLte, Drumming of the Ruffed Grouse. Sa 


Vol. XXXVI] 
essentially the same, and produced in the same way as the roar 
which accompanies the flight of the Grouse when startled (that is, 
by the action of the wings on the air), is perhaps an unsatisfactory 
explanation of that far-away throbbing challenge which steals on 
the ear so subtly, like the half heard beating of one’s own heart. 
Yet for want of further evidence it must serve. What I should 
most like to discover is to how great an extent inflation of the 
rudimentary tympanum serves to enhance the strenuous thrust 
of the wings which seem to catch the air at the well feathered flanks. 

Most of the Tetraonide are possessed of air sacs, located under 
the neck tufts or ruffs, which when inflated are capable of pro- 
ducing a booming sound of great carrying power, which may be 
heard while the birds are performing their amatory dances, and it 
does not seem to me at all impossible that the sound-carrying 
powers of the drumming of Bonasa may in part be traced to an 
inflation of the rudimentary sacs which it possesses. In this 
connection observation alone is of little service, though I noticed 
that in the pause which follows the preliminary wing beats (which 
have but little sound-carrying power) that the contour of the bird 
changes perceptibly, the throat and the region of the ruffs is 
apparently swelled, and the next wing beat comes with increased 
volume. Mindful of what effects a bird can produce simply by a 
change in the arrangement of his plumage, I am inclined to think 
that this “swelling” is of an inflated character. Audubon, by 
puncturing the air sacs of a captured Pinnated Grouse, satisfied 
himself that these appendages were the source of the “booming,” 
and perhaps some such experiment with a captive Ruffed Grouse 
would prove to what extent inflation of these parts plays in the 
ventriloqual and resonant quality characteristic of this bird’s 
exuberant drumming. 

But to me the most significant feature of the drumming is not 
the question as to the source of its sound-carrying powers, nor the 
attitudes that the Grouse assumes, though they are interesting, 
but it is the evidence of the compelling power of habit. (This 
differs greatly in individuals, and I here confine myself to the 
individual studied during the spring of 1918.) In spite of the 
disturbances which occurred owing to my presence in the blind, 
in spite of the obvious annoyance of the blind itself, especially 


338 Turtie, Drumming of the Ruffed Grouse. [nut 


when moved to within six feet of the log, in spite of the adversity 
of the weather, in spite of the countless other logs on which he 
might have drummed, and on which he had drummed before he 
fixed his preference on the one which later came under my observa- 
tion, he continued to arrive at the log within five or ten minutes 
of the appointed time, hurrying to it, after he had carefully recon- 
noitred the woods for possible enemies, as if irresistibly drawn by a 
power over which he had no control. He was obviously reluctant 
to leave the log when disturbed and usually returned to it, if the 
hour was still early, as soon as he had satisfied his inherent caution. 

I was unable to study to what extent the drumming serves as a 
mating call, because the hen, whose nest was some two hundred 
and fifty yards to the north, had finished laying her complement of 
fourteen eggs on the fifth of May and had begun to set before the 
third day of my observation. May second and third were the 
only two days on which I might have seen the birds together at 
the log, and on neither of these days did the hen appear. On May 
second, however, after leaving my blind and walking about a 
hundred yards in the direction in which I had seen the cock dis- 
appear, I flushed the cock and another Grouse within a dozen feet 
of each other. This second bird I feel sure was the hen of the pair, 
because there were no other Grouse in this particular little second 
growth swale and because the nest was but a stone’s throw away; 
nor was the hen on the nest when I walked over to it directly after 
flushing the pair of birds. 

Inferences from the bird’s attitude while on the log are largely 


speculation. The watchfulness which he displayed at all times: 


was doubtless quite as much in the interest of his own safety as in 
the endeavor to discover the presence of his mate, yet there was 
one characteristic habit that might be interpreted as indicative 
of the fact that the Grouse was on the lookout for the hen. This 
was the fact that whenever I made a noise within the blind, such 
as might have been made by the football of the hen on the leaves, 
he at once craned his neck in the direction of the sound and imme- 
diately drummed. I made such a noise several times, with the 
intention of imitating a bird’s footsteps, and on each occasion he 
displayed a lively interest, quickly followed by an exhibition of his 
wing power. 


ag || Moustey, The Singing Tree. 339 


The sound to which the Grouse gave instant and invariable 
attention was the alarm note of the Blue Jay. To the scolding 
of Robins and even to the cawing of Crows he turned a deaf ear, 
but the protesting voice of a Jay hushed the sound of the drum 
note, and a period of silent waiting ensued, during which interval 
he was evidently at some pains to discover the cause of the Jay’s 
displeasure. 

There was a time, when the spring drumming of the Grouse 
thundered from a hundred hills, woke the echoes like the throbbing 
tom-toms of tribes upon the war-path and sent the blood sap 
pulsing quicker along the veins; but laws are useless where they 
are not enforced, and unless the Ruffed Grouse is given a greater 
measure of protection, the woods will no longer hear his footfall 
that might for years have thrilled to the vigorous ardor of his wings. 


’ THE SINGING TREE,’ OR HOW NEAR TO THE NEST 
DO THE MALE BIRDS SING?! 


BY H. MOUSLEY. 


My attention was first drawn to this interesting subject by my 
inability to find the nesting sites of warblers, although regarding 
other species I was more than ordinarily successful. I must admit 
I was discouraged but not surprised, for to find the nests of these 
interesting little gems has always been more or less of a gamble to 
the students of the family Mniotiltcde. Of course there are red 
letter days when by. accident one sees a female with building 
material fly direct to the nesting site, but these are generally few 
and far between, and in my experience one hardly ever sees the 
females until the nests are discovered. It is the males that are 
always in evidence, not only during the nesting season, but also 
at migration times, and I can well remember the day when the 


1 Read before the Nuttall Ornithological Club by Dr. Chas. W. Townsend for the Au- 
thor, Oct. 21, 1918. 


340 Moustey, The Singing Tree. [sae 
idea first occurred to me of paying special attention to them, and 
ceasing to worry about the females, which as I have already 
remarked one rarely sees, as compared with the other sex. 

With this object in view, I repaired one day to a favorite wood, 
on the outskirts of which I located a male Myrtle Warbler (Den- 
droica coronata) singing from the top of an ash tree. This bird I 
determined to keep in view, and follow about wherever he went, 
a thing much easier to carry out in theory than in practice as a rule, 
although this particular bird was more than kind, and gave me 
very little trouble. After watching and following him about for 
some time, I found that he generally ended by coming back to 
the ash tree, from which he always sang. Seeing that this was the 
case I gave up following him about, and remained in the immediate 
neighborhood of this tree, where soon afterwards I had the satis- 
faction of seeing him make a sudden dart from the top of it mto a 
nearby spruce, and there I found the female and her nest, and at 
the same time learnt the secret which has since enabled me to add 
many arare warbler to my breeding list. Do not imagine however, 
kind reader, that in that one morning I had found the perfect 
system by which all gamblers hope some day or other to ‘break the 
bank.’ More often than not the bank breaks the gamblers, and. 
no system seems to hold good for long. With mine, however, the 
case has been different, for the longer I have studied the ways of 
the male birds at nesting time, the more I have been able to perfect 
my system, and instead of the birds beating me, I am gradually 
getting the better of them, although to do so I have had to display 
more than the patience of Job, and have often had to remain with 
them for hours at a time before obtaining their secret. For the 
perfect working of my system, however, there is one thing essential 
and that is a singing male, the lack of which lost me a great prize 
only this summer (1918), for having located a pair of Cape May 
Warblers (Dendroica tigrina) in a certain large wood from June 
11 to 26, I failed to find the nesting site, as the male could never 
be found singing. I would come across him (only once with the 
female) often in a certain area of the wood, but he always managed 
to give me the slip after a'time, and his failure to sing never enabled 
me to follow him up. Not so however with a male Bay-breasted 
Warbler (Dendroica castanea) that I came across about the same 


eet Moustey, The Singing Tree. 341 
time and also in this same wood, for his persistent singing from the 
top of a particular birch tree eventually enabled me to locate the 
nest and eggs, as I shall relate hereafter. Neither of these Warblers 
had been observed here during the breeding season, but I was 
familiar with them at migration times, when the former has always 
struck me as being somewhat of a mute species. 

However, to return to the Myrtle Warbler (Dendroica coronata), 
after finding its nest I measured the distance of the latter from the 
ash or ‘singing tree,’ and found it to be twenty-one yards. I did 
this at the time (and have continued it ever since) more from habit, 
than with any preconceived idea in my mind that it was going 
to be of material benefit to me hereafter, or that it would eventually 
enable me to answer with some degree of confidence, the question 
(which I have adopted as the title of this paper) recently sprung 
upon me in a letter from one of my most valued friends, viz: 
How near to the nests do the male birds generally sing? 

To this question I replied that in my experience if a male bird 
could be found singing constantly in the same tree or trees, the nest 
would generally be found within twenty yards of the spot, in 
support of which I have prepared the following table, from which 
the average distance of the nest from the ‘singing tree’ or observa- 
tion post of the male, for a number of birds works out at rather less 
than twenty yards, or to be precise seventeen yards. 


Distance of nest from ‘ singing 


Rear Species tree’ or observation posts of male 
1911 | Yellow Warbler 8 yards 
1912 | Maryland Yellow-throat 4 
“ “ “ “ 8S 
Gi Kingbird 8 
Catbird 20 
1914 | Maryland Yellow-throat 10 
i Spotted Sandpiper 8 
1915 = : 14 
: Prairie Horned Lark Bw) 


342 Moustey, The Singing Tree. [fuk 
Year Species eo or clee ea 
1915 | Phoebe 5 
a Robin 8 
o White-throated Sparrow 10 
. Northern Parula Warbler 12 
“ “ “ “ 7 and 9 
% Myrtle Warbler 21 
“ “ “ 95 
“ “ “ 6 
1916 | Black-throated Blue Warbler 100 
1917 | Nashville Warbler 8 
. Myrtle Warbler 24 
ys Blackburnian Warbler 10 and 18 
od Bobolink DD 
1918 | Northern Parula Warbler 26 
i Magnolia Warbler 18 
ve Blackburnian Warbler 18 
¢ Purple Finch 4 
se Canada Warbler 15 
a Chestnut-sided Warbler 20 
« Black-throated Blue Warbler 50 and 90 
Black-throated Green Warbler 20 
“ Maryland Yellow-throat 7 and 11 
é Kingbird 6 
. White-throated Sparrow 6 
OM Wood Pewee 8 
< Cedar Waxwing 4 and 8 
¢ Bluebird 15 
y Bay-breasted Warbler 16 and 13 
Magnolia Warbler ~ 7 


Black-throated Green Warbler 
Olive-backed Thrush 


Average = 


14 and 12 
ri 


17 yards 


Peta. | Moustey, The Singing Tree. 343 


Of course there are many birds that actually sing on the nest 
itself, such as Purple Finches, Rose-breasted Grosbeaks and some 
of the Vireos, to say nothing of others which, like the Tree Swallows, 
do so on and at the entrance to the nesting boxes, as well as Barn 
Swallows, which sing as they fly in and out of the barn and on the 
rafters. Many others again, such as Kingbirds for example, make 
use of the nesting tree to constantly perch in, whilst others will be 
found singing from it also. 

Now in order to illustrate my ‘modus operandi,’ I propose to 
give an account of the finding this season (1918) of a Blackburnian 
Warbler’s (Dendroica fusca) nest, as well as the one of the Bay- 
breasted Warbler (Dendroica castanea) already referred to. As 
regards the former, the male had been noted during the migration 
time as always occupying a certain little belt of spruce and fir trees, 
on the outskirts of a large wood, and close to a country cross road, 
and as he was still there after the bulk of the migrants had gone, 
I came to the conclusion that it was about time to pay special 
attention to him. 

I therefore on June 10 repaired to the site, having already noted 
one particular tree that he seemed to favor most for his vocal 
performances. From this tree I measured out twenty yards to the 
north, south, east and west of it, marking the spots with rough 
stakes, hoping sooner or later (it is more often than not the latter) 
to discover the nest within the magic circle. After having done this 
the next thing I always do is to inspect the ground carefully within 
the area of the stakes, in order to find out what likely spots (one gets 
to know these by experience) are dominated by the ‘singing tree.’ 
In this particular instance the most likely one seemed to lie to the 
north, although I rather favored one to the east, from having 
previously seen the male take that direction on several occasions 
when leaving the singing tree. However, one can never be sure, 
and the only way is to watch the male’s every movement. This I 
proceeded to do for the next two hours, with very little result, as 
he merely kept flitting round about the magic circle whilst ever 
and anon singing from a few special trees. However, the critical 
moment came at last, as a downward swoop, so to speak, of his, into 
a spruce tree to the north brought out the female. I at once made 
for this tree, mentally congratulating myself that the nest was as 


344 Movustey, The Singing Tree. [aut 
good as found. Careful scanning with the glasses however re- 
vealed nothing, nor did a climb produce any better results; so I 
was perforce obliged to commence the tiring business of watching 
the actions of the male once more. These however are varied and 
interesting and the least significant may often lead to unexpected 
results. For instance, be careful to note in what direction he usu- 
ally faces when in the ‘singing tree,’ as this may give some clue to 
the nesting site. Now in this case it was to the east and notwith- 
standing his downward swoop to the north, I felt convinced that 
the nest would eventually be found in the former direction (for the 
reasons already given), so when after nearly another two hours of 
weary watching, he at last made another of those telltale swoops, 
and this time to the east, and the female again appeared, I thought 
my troubles were surely at an end, and the nest was at last within 
my reach. Nothing of the kind apparently, for on training the 
glasses onto the spot (somewhat carelessly it must have been, owing 
no doubt to being over-tired) no signs of a nest could be seen, and 
as it was then past noon, I left for home and some dinner, much 
disgusted with my ill luck. An hour later, however, found me on 
my way back, with the intention of overhauling that tree more care- 
fully, and perhaps climbing it. The latter however was not neces- 
sary, for on approaching it, much to my surprise and pleasure I 
noticed the female on the ground under it. This of course raised 
my suspicions, and I watched her carefully until she went at length 
to the very spot on the branch, some fifteen feet above the ground, 
that the male had swooped to, and remained there a short time. 
Upon her leaving, I had another good look at the spot through 
my glasses, and sure enough there seemed to be the faintest indi- 
cation of the outlines of a nest, so faint however that I had failed 
to notice it in the morning, and even now could hardly make up 
my mind until the female had been seen to go to it again several 
times. Thus after some five hours’ hard work the goal had been 
reached, and it lay within the magic circle at eighteen yards from 
the ‘singing tree.’ . 
Now it must not be imagined that during all those hours I had 
the male constantly under observation, an impossibility with a 
warbler, as often when singing he would suddenly cease, cock his 
head on one side, peer down into the undergrowth, and then sud- 


M 


Vol. ao | 


1919 Moustey, The Singing Tree. 345 


denly make off, and I knew by this that he had probably observed 
the female and was after her; but as often as not I was in the 
opposite direction, and was unable to follow them quickly enough 
to obtain their exact whereabouts, and often the male was not seen 
again for some considerable time. During such intervals I search 
all the likely looking spots and incidentally often come across the 
nests of other birds (as will be seen hereafter) the males of which 
had been noticed in the same places from time to time durmg my 
long enforced periods of watching. 

The Blackburnian is certainly a great singer, or at least I should 
say persistent one, for the song cannot by any: stretch of the 
imagination be said to be great. During my long acquaintance 
with this one he sang off and on for most of the time, and I have 
noticed the same thing to occur with others that I have watched 
for shorter periods. The nest contained a full set of four eggs on 
June 18. 

And now for the afternoon of June 24, a record one in many ways, 
for besides being the first occasion on which I had ever seen a 
Bay-breasted Warbler (Dendroica castanea) here in the summer, 
I had also the pleasure of finding its nest and eggs, and thus being 
able to add it to my breeding list, to say nothing of the nests of a 
Black-throated Green Warbler (Dendroica virens), and Magnolia 
Warbler (Dendroica magnolia) that also fell to my lot, as well as 
one of an Olive-backed Thrush (Hylocichla ustulata swainsoni), 
thus constituting a record for my system for a period of about four 
hours. 

Now to begin with I was on my way to the Cape May Warbler 
ground, to reach which I had to pass within some two hundred 
yards or less of the site of the nest of the Blackburnian Warbler 
already described, when my attention was drawn to a song that 
puzzled me. It seemed similar to that of a Blackburnian except 
that it was sometimes given in two keys, and seemed to be generally 
louder. On looking in the direction from which it came I espied 
much to my astonishment in the topmost (dead) branches of a birch 
tree a fine male Bay-breasted Warbler (Dendroica castanea). To 
say that the Cape May was forgotten is putting it somewhat 
mildly, as I never even gave him a thought again that afternoon, 
so elated was I at finding a singing male of this rarity, and thus 


346 Mousey, The Singing Tree. ns 


being able to further test the reliability of my system. Having 
watched him for some time and convinced myself that the birch 
tree was really the favored one (although there was a tall hemlock 
with dead branches also not far off, which was almost equally used), 
I proceeded to measure off the prescribed distance as already 
indicated. This being done and the ground, which was truly a 
warbler one, inspected, I noticed that on the eastern side the trees 
were taller than the birch or ‘singing tree,’ and therefore the latter 
did not dominate this part of the circle, and in all probability the 
nest would not be there. In passing, it may be well to mention 
that the ‘singing tree’ does not always necessarily dominate the 
nesting one, although I have generally found it to do so, an ex- 
ception being that of a male Purple Finch (Carpodacus purpureus 
purpureus) who sang from an apple tree on the opposite side of the 
spruce tree in which the nest was placed, but in this case there were 
no trees overlooking the nest at all. Surely the male had no voice 
in selecting that site (although he undoubtedly did the ‘singing 
tree,’ as he had frequented it often previous to any nest being 
started in the spruce), invisible as it was to him whilst singing! 
But there, that opens up another interesting problem, and I must 
get back to the work in hand. After watching the male Bay- 
breast for some time, I noticed that he generally faced either north 
or south, whilst in the two ‘singing trees,’ more generally the latter, 
and I concluded that somewhere in that direction the nest would 
eventually be found, as it was an absolutely ideal spot. Now 
in the lower branches of the hemlock tree a male Magnolia Warbler 
ventured to sing on several occasions, but was always driven 
away by the Bay-breasted Warbler. This looked suspicious and 
I overhauled the firs and spruces in close proximity, with the result 
that the female Magnolia was flushed from her nest and set of four 
eges only seven yards away from where the male had attempted 
to sing. 

Time was flying fast, however, and still no signs of the female 
Bay-breasted Warbler, until a sudden downward swoop of the male 
to the south, brought her out to the east, and I was able to follow 
her about for a short time, until she eventually gave me the slip. 
Then I began to search the southern site more carefully, from 
which direction I had also just previously heard some Thrush-like 


peek) Moustey, The Singing Tree. 347 


notes proceeding from a tall maple tree; and it was not long before 
I flushed the female Olive-backed Thrush (already referred to) 
from her nest and four eggs, which were situated in a small hemlock 
tree only seven yards from where the male had been heard. 

At that supreme moment I was only eight yards from the nest 
of the Bay-breasted Warbler yet failed to detect it. Then I worked 
round to the west, where a Black-throated Green Warbler was 
singing from the top of a tall elm tree, and later on the female was 
flushed from her set of four eggs, just fourteen yards from the 
‘singing tree’ of the male. At any other time three nests and two 
of them Warblers in three hours, I should have considered as out of 
the common, but in the present instance I paid no attention to the 
matter whatever, my thoughts all being centred on the greater 
prize. 

The best part of another hour however went by and still no 
results, so I decided to have another good look to the south, as the 
actions of the male convinced me the nest was in that direction. 
Incidentally also I wanted to get the particulars relating to the 
nest of the Olive-backed Thrush, and it was whilst engaged with 
this that a bird flew to the back of me and alighted in a small fir 
tree. Turning sharply round I noticed she was the female Bay- 
breasted Warbler, and almost directly she went to her nest, not- 
withstanding that I was in full view of her and only eight yards 
away. The nest was in the top of a small fir tree, nine feet from 
the ground and three feet from the top of the tree, and placed 
close against the trunk. It contained a set of four slightly incu- 
bated eggs. I had passed it several times that afternoon without 
noticing it, but no one familiar with the nests of warblers will be 
surprised at this admission. So beautifully do they seem to blend 
with their surroundings that they seem to be part and parcel of 
them, and it is no easy matter sometimes to detect a nest, although 
comparatively in an exposed position as this one was. It was 
just five-thirty P. M. when I found it, and within the magic circle 
too, it being exactly sixteen yards from the ‘singing tree’ of the 
male, which I first noticed’ at one-thirty P. M., so that I had spent 
exactly four hours with this bird, during which time he sang almost 
continuously, with only short intervals of rest in between. This 
species as well as the Blackburnian and Black-throated Blue 


348 Movstey, The Singing Tree. [ae 
(Dendroica caerulescens cwrulescens) i my experience are certainly 
incessant singers, but the Black-throated Blue differs in many 
respects from the other two, as he seems to affect denser fohaged 
trees, and usually sings higher up and is what one might call not a 
home bird, as I have generally found him to sing much further away 
from the nest than any of the other Warblers. Still in his case if 
you are familiar with the sites usually selected for nesting, the 
‘singing tree’ or trees will always give you a clue; the only thing 
you must do is to be somewhat more elastic with regard to the 
magic circle. In the case of a nest I found this year I could see 
from the nature of the ground beneath the ‘singing trees’ that a 
radius of twenty yards failed to bring me within any site at all 
likely to hold a nest, the ground being much too open; but by 
doubling this distance I came within some very dense under- 
growth, and this I knew from experience was just the very sort of 
ground a female Black-throated Blue Warbler would be likely to 
select. I therefore measured out forty yards, but even this was 
not quite enough, for the nest was eventually found at fifty yards 
from the nearest ‘singing tree,’ and ninety yards from the furthest. 
I mention this case in order to show that there are times when 
experience and a little common sense must be displayed if good 
results are to be expected. 

In conclusion it may be stated that in the case of birds that sing 
in the air such as Prairie Horned Larks, I have found their nests 
by constantly noticing the male frequenting a certain observation 
post, usually consisting of a large stone or boulder, although in 
one case it was actually a tree (see ‘Auk,’ vol. XX XIII, 1916, 
p. 285), and from there measuring out the required distance and 
then walking quietly over the ground, looking well ahead for the 
female to slip off the nest. Of course it may be necessary to repeat 
this proceeding several times before she is eventually found at 
home, but in the meantime there is always the off chance of the 
nest being discovered quite irrespective of the female whilst quarter- 
ing the ground. This method can be adopted equally well with 
Spotted Sandpipers (Actitis macularia) as I found two nests, one in 
1914 and the other in 1915, the observation post of the male in 
each case being a heap of stones in a field adjoining ‘the marsh.’ 


“ 


THE AUK, VOL. XXXVI. PLATE XII. 


Photo. by V. F. Richards 


1. SuGcar Loar Mountatn, Deerrietp, Mass. SHowinc LepGr WHERE 
Duck Hawks Nestep 


2. Youne Duck Hawk on NestinG Lepce, May 30, 1917 


Sia | Ricuarps, Karly History of Duck Hawk. 349 


THE EARLY HISTORY OF A DUCK HAWK. 
BY VIOLA F. RICHARDS. 
Plates XII-XITI. 


How long since Sugar Loaf Mountain, a State Reservation in 
the town of Deerfield, Massachusetts, became a nesting place for 
the Falco peregrinus anatum, or Duck Hawk, no one knows, but 
records show that it was more than one hundred years ago. Year 
after year they have laid their eggs, and reared their young in 
practically inaccessible places among the ledges on the eastern side 
of the mountain. 

In the spring of 1917, Charles L. Fisher, an enthusiastic bird 
student who lives at the foot of Sugar Loaf, discovered that the 
Duck Hawks had chosen for a nesting place, a ledge to which access 
was surprisingly easy. On the open ledge, with no pretense of a 
nest, were laid three eggs, cream colored, with an encircling band of 
chocolate colored spots. Lighter spots covered the large end of 
each egg, but the small end was clear. These eggs were the size of, 
and similar in shape to, a Leghorn pullet’s egg. At the time of 
discovery two of these eggs were cracked, ready to hatch. That 
night two of them disappeared. The remaining egg hatched next 
day, which was May 5, 1917. 

Instead of being bare and unlovely, like many baby birds, this 
little bird resembled a bunch of cotton, with two bright, black eyes. 
Within a few days, a faint, grayish hue took the place of the clear 
white. May 18 the nestling was photographed for the first time. 
An excellent idea of the nesting place is gathered from this picture. 

A second photograph, taken May 21, shows the bird at close 
range. At this time it did not show much fear of intruders. 

May 30, when a photographer visited the ledge, the young bird 
was still clad in a coat of fluffy down. During this visit the anxious 
_ parent birds soared overhead, occasionally coming so near that the 
whistle made by their wings cutting the air made a chill creep 
along the spine of the photographer. That their shrill screams 
were warnings which the young bird understood, was evident, for 
it crouched as flat as it could on the rock, with head down, and 
kept as nearly motionless as possible. But its heart beat wildly, 


350 Ricuarps, Early History of Duck Hawk. rae 


and its beady black eyes watched every move made by the visitor. 

Early in June, dark feathers began to take the place of the down, 
and for a time the bird was decidedly ragged in appearance. His 
naturally fierce disposition became noticeable, and he showed 
increasing resentment when visitors appeared. 

About this time State Ornithologist E. H. Forbush came to take 
pictures of the now famous baby Duck Hawk. Earlier in its 
career, Mr. H. Kk. Job had succeeded in obtaining some very fine 
films of it for moving pictures. At that time it had been quite 
docile, and would stay where it was placed very satisfactorily. 
Now, however, it was more active, so Mr. Forbush, aided by Mr. 
Fisher, attached an inconspicuous little harness to its leg, and 
hobbled thus, it became an unwilling but quiet subject for the 
photographer. So ferocious had the bird become, it was necessary 
to handle it — literally — with gloves on. 

Wishing to get a picture of the rapidly maturing bird as late as 
possible before it left the nest, Mr. Fisher closely watched its 
development. When he judged that the bird was ready for flight, 
he made a last exposure with the wonderfully fine result shown here. 
Within a half minute after this was taken the bird flew from the 
ledge. Just how long it remained in the vicinity is not known; 
but a few days later it alighted on a branch of a tree over the ledge 
upon which Mr. Fisher stood, and fearlessly watched while an 
experimental attempt to frighten it away, was made. 

If anyone ever takes a Duck Hawk which carries upon one leg 
the leg-band of a hen, he may be reasonably sure it is the bird about 
which this article is written. 

A careful record was kept of the remains of such birds as were 
used for food by these Duck Hawks, and a list is given below. 


Blue Jays (many) Mourning Doves 
Kungbirds Pheebes 
Nuthatches Different Warblers 
Chickens Veeries 

Grosbeaks Woodpeckers 
Scarlet Tanagers Homing Pigeon 
Flickers 


May 30, on the leg-band of a Homing Pigeon, the remains of 
which were found on the ledge, was this inscription: A-US J 5733 
(the A and U joined together). 


THE AUK, VOL. XXXVI. PLATE XIII. 


Pholo. by Chas. L. Fisher 


1. Youne Duck Hawk, May 21, 1917 
2. Youna Duck Hawk, JuNE 16, 1917 


anal Rossins, Cape Cod Piping Plover. 301 


A COLONY OF CAPE COD PIPING PLOVER. 
BY C. A. ROBBINS. 


Tue Piping Plover (gialitis meloda) is the only beach-inhabit- 
ing member of the family that breeds within the limits of New 
England. To former generations of residents along the coast 
their rather plaintive call was a familiar summer sound. Then, 
because the gunner had marked them for his own, there came a 
time when long stretches of their breeding grounds grew silent 
and as the silence spread over an ever-lengthening area it began 
to be feared that they might — like other species of shore birds — 
entirely disappear. 

Happily the fear is not likely to be realized. On the contrary, 
it is gratifying to note, in some places, a generous increase in their 
numbers. 

This is due mainly to the protection which the law is now afford- 
ing them, although the steadily growing interest in the welfare 
of all birds has doubtless aided, both directly and indirectly. It 
may pretty confidently be expected therefore that they will reappear 
in other localities which have long been bare of them and that in 
those most favorable there will be a return to something like their 
former abundance. 

The shores of Cape Cod are mostly gentle slopes of clean beach 
with a belt of stony or pebbly sand extending back above the rows 
of drift, which mark the upper reaches of the tide, to a growth of 
beach-pea and sand-grass (Ammophila). This, in turn, often 
meets and over-runs a rise of low dunes beyond. 

Spots of this kind are chosen by these birds for their summer 
homes. One such on the Bay side of the Cape and near its base, 
varying from the conventional character only in having on the 
inland side of the narrow wall of dunes a shoal brackish pond of 
an acre or more, has lately become really populous with them. 
On a section of beach bounded on one side by an inlet and on the 
other by a break in the chain of dunes and containing possibly 
four acres there were this past season (1918) not less than nine 


| 


302 Rossins, Cape Cod Piping Plover. [nue 


pairs and broods while on an adjacent strip of beach of about the 
same extent nearly, if not quite, as many more were settled. 

There are probably many who are unfamiliar with the species. 
To them, perhaps, the following,— resulting from frequent visits 
to the little colony,— may be of interest. 

The earliest brood was running about on the morning of June 9. 
The birds were very small, having hatched probably earlier in the 
day or possibly on the day previous. The last hatching was 
around the 16th. All, or at least all within the bounded section, 
were in broods of three. By the middle of July old and young 
were flying in flocks. By the last of the month the majority had 
left; those that remained being either in small bands by them- 
selves or else associated with the newly-arrived Ring-necks!! 

Most birds, even those that are gregarious through the greater 
part of the year, disperse more or less widely during the nesting 
period. These Plovers, however, nest comparatively close together. 
The young, therefore, of every brood from the time they are 
hatched are not only continuously associated with one another 
but as they range over the beach in search of food each is con- 
stantly brought into contact with members of other broods while 
the broods themselves gather into flocks as soon as the power of 
flight is acquired. 

While this habitual association indicates, of course, a naturally 
strong social disposition and consequently a more than ordinary 
amount of sympathetic feeling, the continued companionship 
itself could hardly fail to develop the feeling still further. Hence 
there has been built up in the species a spirit of mutual protection. 

This communal foster feeling occasionally manifests itself in a 
marked degree; as when, at a threat of danger, more than two 
adults join in driving a single brood up the beach and into the 
safety which the concealing color of the dry sand furnishes. 

It is shown again by the number of old birds that attempt to 
distract attention from the same brood or even from a detached 
individual by feigning; creeping off with wings outstretched and 
fluttering, tail fanned and dragging or, if the need requires more 


1 There is, of course, no way of knowing that these later birds were from the summer 
colony. Possibly all those had moved along and the ones seen from time to time during 
the rest of the season were migrants. 


i. fm 


Vol. ee | 
1919 


Rossins, Cape Cod Piping Plover. 353 
extreme measures, collapsing utterly a short distance away as if 
completely exhausted. 

They always make their nests on the dry upper beaches but, 
like various other shore birds, feed commonly along the water’s 
edge where the moist sand teems with myriads of minute living 
creatures. Here, as they run back and forth, the comparatively 
dark background makes them conspicuous even from some little 
distance and, as if sensing this, the first hint of approaching danger 
sends them to the cover of the lighter colored beach above. 

Concealment is the best means of protection the little birds 
possess. It is also largely depended upon by the adults during 
the nesting season and until the young are able to use their wings. 
A really remarkable correspondence has been developed between 
their color and that of the upper beaches; so perfect is it that it 
enables them to merge themselves into and become a practically 
indistinguishable part of the surrounding waste of sand. Hence 
birds to be kept under observation must be watched while they 
are in motion until they come to rest. If the eyes are diverted 
from one after it has settled much patience is apt to be required 
to locate it again although its whereabouts may be almost exactly 
known. 

Their disappearance is due to the beach appearing to be uni- 
formly of one color while actually it is not. The irregularities 
in its surface produce everywhere a multitude of shadow-points 
and lines and besides these shaded spots countless particles of 
dark colored material are mingled with the lighter sand. These 
contrasting colors are lost in the impression of sameness which 
the beach as a whole presents and thus, while the general tone of 
the upper parts of the bird matches that of the dry sand on which 
it crouches, the darker markings in its plumage fade into the back- 
ground and become no more noticeable than the lines of shade 
they simulate. The eyes, which in the hiding bird of all ages are 
kept alertly open, are rendered inconspicuous not, perhaps, so 
much because they simulate shadow-points as because of their 
likeness to dark bits of beach content. 

It is difficult to see whether or not the presence of stones or 
pebbles is an advantage to the bird. In all probability it is; yet 
the disappearance, at least so far as human vision is concerned, 


Fae 


354 Rossins, Cape Cod Piping Plover. 
seems to be as complete against a background of bare sand as 
against one over which stones are thickly strewn. 

Of course it frequently happens that there is no time for con- 
cealment. Then, the young birds attempt to escape by running,— 
the tiny legs working with surprising rapidity and carrying them 
over the ground so swiftly and smoothly that they looked like balls 
of down blowing before the wind. Also, if their escape up the 
beach is cut off and they continue to be closely pressed they do not 
hesitate to take to the water. Even those only a few hours out 
of the shell swim well and navigate their frail craft if not with 
intelligence at least in a direction away from the source of danger. 
Obviously neither of these two modes of escape can afford them 
much security. 

The earliest concealing actions must be wholly instinctive, but 
from them (which lead to a merely passive reliance upon conceal- 
ment) there is a gradual transition to actions which are intelli- 
gently directed to make the concealment more effective. For 
instance, the very young when frightened run to a safe distance 
and simply sit motionless. Birds a week or more older not only 
run but usually hAzde; that is, they flatten themselves, head as 
well as body, on the sand, often (perhaps in the majority of 
instances) turning so as to face the danger point. Furthermore, 
the older fledglings will repeat the performance as often as occasion 
requires; a too near approach starts them running again and again 
and the concealing actions will be gone through any number of 
times. With those younger or less experienced there is as likely 
as not to be no further effort made to escape after the first; and 
this, as we have just seen, ends with no attempt toward conceal- 
ment other than the negative one of sitting still. 

One of these newly hatched youngsters that we came upon 
suffered his bill to be uptilted, his body to be prodded with the 
finger and even permitted himself without protesting to be picked 
up and held in the hand. All to no purpose; the machinery of 
his nervous system seemed to have run down and when he was 
returned to the ground he almost immediately settled into position 
again. Evidently concealment, throughout the history of the 
species, must have been generally successful; otherwise, it is hard 
to understand why the relation between the concealing actions and 


Sos | Wricut, Black Duck Nesting at Boston. 300 


the ensuing feeling of security should have become so firmly fixed. 

As a mode of escape or protection, however, it is practised 
only so long as the birds are bound to a restricted area — the young 
by their inability to leave it, the old by the care which the nest 
and fledglings entail. As soon, therefore, as the young birds have 
acquired the full use of their wings both young and old alike seek 
the greater safety in flight. 


BLACK DUCK NESTING IN BOSTON PUBLIC GARDEN. 
BY HORACE W. WR!GHT. 


THE first appearance of Black ‘)ucks (Anas rubripes tristis) in 
the Public Garden, of which ] «in aware, was in the early morning 
of May 22, 1910, when a pair flew in, alighted on the pond among a 
family of Mallards (Anas platyrhynchos), and remained fifteen or 
twenty minutes, alert and watchful in their new surroundings. 
The parent Mallards at once became solicitous for their young 
brood, especially the mother who carefully kept herself between 
the female Black Duck and the ducklings. These ducklings 
had been hatched on May 12, nine in number, but four had been 
lost in the first few days of life on the pond, leaving five which were 
successfully reared. When the pair of Blacks left they were 
escorted on their way by the Mallard drake. The Black Ducks 
very probably came from the Back Bay Fens, where a considerable 
flock then wintered season by season. The building of the coffer 
dam to form the Charles River Basin and exclude tide water has 
resulted in the complete freezing up of the waters in the Fens in 
more recent years and an enforced absence of ducks in the winter. 
But about the intakes of reservoirs in the vicinity and on Leverett 
Pond, where the waters of Muddy River enter, Black Ducks in 
varying numbers still winter. 

The following spring, 1911, a pair of Blacks came to the ao 
on April 18, remained for a short time, watchful of any approach, 


306 Wricut, Black Duck Nesting at Boston. [ue 
and presently took wing westward over the housetops in the direc- 
tion of the Fens. The following morning they were again present, 
but did not stay, departing in flight toward the Common. The 
third morning during an easterly rain they remained and were 
observed for forty minutes, a typical pair of Anas rubripes tristis 
(Brewster,) the drake with rather red legs and greenish bill, and 
the duck smaller with brownish legs and dusky bill. They occu- 
pied the northern half of the pond where the island is located. 
The duck invariably swam in advance of the drake, who gal- 
lantly accepted her motives and desires as his guide. Once she 
flew up onto the side of the foot bridge outside the railing in her 
procedure of investigation. Then both swam toward the island, 
and she traversed much of its surface, testing the various recesses 
among the rocks, evidently in search of a nesting site, and several 
times settled herself an instant to try the several locations. Again 
she dropped into the water, joining her mate who had remained 
close by, but had not gone on the island with her. The resumption 
of close companionship was then followed by much bobbing of 
heads and a full expression of mutual love. Swimming was 
resumed, and later they climbed out onto the curbing, giving 
scarcely more heed to passersby than did the domesticated Mallard 
pair of the previous year. Perhaps, the heavily clouded and rainy 
character of the morning was a favoring circumstance. Clearly 
they had gained a great degree of confidence in two days and the 
preliminaries for nesting seemed now to have been inaugurated. 
Would the boating presently disturb them? It was a question of 
much interest. The island, however, will be as secure a nesting 
place as it was for the Mallards the previous year when the nine 
ducklings were hatched, and later in the summer a second brood 
of eight was hatched and all were raised. 

That pair of Mallards was the first which had been seen in the 
Garden. Probably it belonged to the park flock living in the 
Fens and in 1910 first made choice of the Garden pond for breeding. 
These Mallards, presumably the same pair, had returned on 
March 21 in the following spring and begun preparations for nest- 
ing on the island, when a week later the water was drawn from the 
pond and remained off for eighteen days, leaving only a dry bottom, 
and the discouraged ducks left. The water was restored on April 


Vol. ae | 


1919 Wricut, Black Duck Nesting at Boston. 357 


15, and happily, three days later the pair of Blacks appeared to 
take the place of the Mallards and possess the now undisputed 
waters, since the latter had evidently gone elsewhere for nesting. 
No Mallards have since bred in the Garden. The order of arrival 
in this instance seems to indicate that the Mallards were prepared 
to breed much earlier than the Blacks, even four weeks, the differ- 
ence in time between March 21 and April 18. Circumstances 
unknown, however, may have contributed to this disparity, such 
as the disturbance of the Blacks where their nesting may already 
have begun. But the interesting fact remains that they found 
the Garden pond with its island unpossessed and at once adopted 
it for their family life. 

After the three successive days of the presence of the Blacks, 
already noted, they were absent from the records of the following 
two mornings. But on April 23 they were back, and the duck 
several times again searched the island for a nesting site, the 
drake remaining nearby on the water and occasionally bobbing 
his head in affectionate greeting to her. When she rejoined him, 
there was the natural expression of their mutual love. Again the 
next two mornings the pair was absent, and the question arose 
whether their choice of the Garden for nesting was after all a 
certainty. But on the 26th, this doubt was removed by perceiving 
that the duck had apparently made choice of location for her nest 
on the west side of the island in a suitable little hollow into which 
her body fitted well. She turned herself about in it several times. 
The spot seemed rather exposed to view, having in reality no con- 
cealment; but the rocks and earth composing it blended completely 
in coloration with herself. So the thought was, if she will only 
sit immovable when boats round the island close to its shores, she 
will probably successfully cover the period of incubation. The 
next day the duck was on her nest in the early morning, and the 
drake was temporarily absent, obviously cognizant of the stage 
the family life had reached. But the day following it became» 
apparent that mother duck was not satisfied with the chosen spot, 
that it had not borne the test of trial, and she had now selected 
a place on the southerly side of the island two to three feet above 
the edge of the water, snugly located behind the trunk of one of 
the willows and shielded still more by neighboring rocks, yet 


fae 


358 Wriaut, Black Duck Nesting at Boston. July 


within view of the careful scrutiny of an observer from shore. 
The drake was again present, but took flight away about 7 a. M. 
in the direction of the Charles River Basin, the duck continuing 
on her new nest while we remained a half hour longer. This was 
April 30. The days following, she went on her nest each morning, 
usually after being seen on the water with her mate, and when she 
had settled herself, the drake would swim away and remain at a 
distance, thus withdrawing attention from the nesting site, or 
would fly away to other waters for a time. On some of the earlier 
mornings the pair were seen arriving on the wing and soon there- 
after the duck to go on her nest. So its occupancy continued 
up to May 24 inclusive, when it might be supposed that she had 
laid her litter of eight to ten eggs and been sitting about two weeks. 
But the following day she could not be seen on her nest or on the 
pond and was not again present during the remaining days of May. 
For some reason the nesting had failed. 

The next two springs, 1912 and 1913, no Black Ducks were seen 
to visit the Garden pond. In 1914, as late as May 16, a pair 
appeared and was present on some of the successive days, but there 
was no nesting. The visits were apparently occasional excursions 
from other waters. But in 1915 a pair of the tristis type, perhaps 
the pair which had made a few occasional appearances in 1914, 
again came to the Garden as early as March 14, when the winter’s 
ice had but partly gone from the pond. They were not seen 
again, however, for a week, during which there was a new formation 
of thin ice nightly with minimum temperatures of 26° to 29°. 
They reappeared on March 21 and followed up their visits, some- 
times being seen on the Frog Pond of the Common. But conditions 
were not yet favorable for nesting activity, for on March 27 there 
came a cold wave lowering the temperature to 18° and a coating 
of new ice was formed on the ponds. This was directly followed 
by the drawing off of the water for the purpose of cleaning the 
‘bottoms, and the ducks, so far as my observation went, made 
only two or three casual visits during the next two weeks. On 
April 3 six inches of snow fell. This delayed the spring-cleaning 
work, and it was two weeks later, or April 17, when the water was 
turned on again. Visits of the pair of Blacks, however, on April 11, 
13, and 14, indicated that they were keeping a watchful eye on 


Ci all Wricut, Black Duck Nesting at Boston. 309 


conditions and might be cherishing a purpose of adopting the 
Garden for their season’s family life. So when the pond had been 
filled by opening connection with the city’s water supply, it was 
reassuring of the fixedness of their choice to see the pair present 
and investigating the island, the drake with the duck. Two 
days later, an observer had the unusual sight of witnessing the 
female walk along a somewhat horizontal branch of one of the 
willows on the island, as a tree-nesting duck would do. The 
following day, the 20th, she was seen settled upon what we sup- 
posed to be the chosen site of her nest, and egg laying probably 
began. The location was near the top of the island, which, how- 
ever, is small, being, perhaps, not more than forty feet in diameter. 
The sitting was successfully accomplished, notwithstanding much 
boating on the pond, and on May 29 mother duck led ten ducklings 
down to the water. This would indicate that the period of laying 
extended from April 20 to 30 and the sitting period of four weeks 
to May 28. I had left the city for the season on that day and so 
was informed by interested observers of what subsequently took 
place. It seems that two of the ducklings were soon lost, and 
that when the remaining eight were only four days old they were 
taken from the mother by the city park department and carried 
to the zoélogical collection at Franklin Park. The park manage- 
ment, it may be said, got an impression from the actions of the 
mother duck in leading her young much about over the lawns and 
getting them into fountain basins from which they could not 
clamber out and follow her, that she was lacking in the proper 
care of them. The parent birds at once left the Garden for the 
season. But they were seen on two or three occasions in October, 
showing that they retained a liking for the place. It was, however, 
a very abrupt and disappointing ending to a mother’s patient sitting 
and a most successful hatching, with much credit due the boating 
public that the nest had in no way been interfered with during the 
period of almost six weeks covering the laying and incubation of 
the eggs. The mother’s restlessness with her young may have 
been due to a desire to get her ducklings away to a less frequented 
place. But the Mallard of 1910 had brought up on the Garden 
pond her two broods hatched on the island, and these had had no 
difficulty in swimming out of the way of approaching boats and 


360 Wricut, Black Duck Nesting at Boston. [iis 


had grown into mature birds within the Garden. And the whole 
combined families were present on the pond many days in the 
autumn up to its freezing over for the winter in late November, 
on other days dividing up and some of them on other near waters. 

When the season of 1916 opened, the first day that the pond 
was free from ice, namely, April 2, the pair of Black Ducks made 
their reappearance, having been thus watchful of conditions. It 
could not be doubted for a moment that it was the same pair 
which had adopted the Garden pond the preceding year, so wonted 
to the place did they seem and withal so glad to be back again 
at the earliest opportunity. They were of the same ftristis type. 
The records show that they were present continuously from that 
date. On April 6 courting was observed, the duck looked the 
island over, and, before leaving it, once again as in the previous 
year perched upon one of the slanting willow trunks and flew off 
thence to the water. Three days later, the 9th, she was on her 
nest and probably deposited her first egg, as two days afterward, 
when she was absent from the Garden, the nest was visited and 
found to contain three eggs. The water had been drawn from the 
pond and none remained around the island. But even these con- 
ditions did not deter her from holding to her chosen location. 
This was now on the northerly side of the island about four feet 
from the water’s edge. On the 14th, again in her absence, the 
nest was visited and found to contain six eggs well covered over 
with dead grasses, the number indicating that one had been laid 
each day. On the 19th the water was returned to the pond. 
Thirty-one days later, on May 20 at 7.10 a. M., she came down to 
the water followed by five ducklings only. Thus many of her 
eggs had failed to hatch. The period covered between the laying 
of her first egg on April 9 and the hatching on May 19 was forty- 
one days. As sitting would occupy but twenty-eight days, the 
period allowed for the laying of thirteen or fourteen eggs. Whether 
such was the case it cannot be stated. If she did not lay as many, 
there must have been an interruption to the usual order of the 
nesting due to some cause unknown. 

When the ducklings dropped into the water, they at once swam 
actively about in their newly awakened happiness. A half-hour 
later the mother had taken them back to their nest for brooding. 


eon | Wricut, Black Duck Nesting at Boston. 361 
The drake came in on the wing five minutes after the young had 
embarked on the pond and joined his family for a time. He had 
been absent almost altogether during the period of incubation, 
only occasionally being seen on the Garden pond. But on some 
of the days he was no farther away than the Frog pond on the 
Common and had the companionship variously of one, two, or 
three other drakes. During the days following the presence of 
the ducklings on the pond with their mother he was seldom with 
his family. 

On May 23, when the ducklings had been but three days upon 
the water, the family was missed from the pond. But shortly 
a loud quacking was heard from the northwest corner of the 
grounds, and it was found that the mother with one duckling was 
travelling toward the pond, while the four remaining ducklings 
were struggling to get out of a fountain basin and follow her. 
This they could not do on account of the height of the granite 
curbing. A dozen men had gathered, attracted by the mother’s 
calls, and seeing that the attempts of the ducklings were unavail- 
ing, it was at length suggested that a garden bench be placed on 
an incline with one end in the water and effort be made to induce 
them to clamber up this incline. This was done, and after a time 
the idea of a means of escape thereby came to them and they began 
its ascent. But the bench proved to be slippery, as it was wet with 
rain, and the ducklings slid back as often as they made an advance. 
The thought then occurred to place newspapers which were at 
hand on the wet surface of the bench. This done, after a little 
time of further effort the ducklings were again induced to try the 
ascent, and three succeeded in climbing to the top and tumbling 
to the ground. Meanwhile the mother duck had left her one 
duckling safe on the pond and returned quacking for the four, a 
reversal of the story of “the ninety and nine.” With a little more 
perseverance the one remaining duckling was induced to climb 
the newspaper-covered bench and was at last in safety with its 
mother and the three, and all travelled to the pond and joined the 
duckling left there, which meanwhile had remained unconcerned 
over its isolation as if it comprehended the whole proceeding. The 
interest and patiently rendered assistance of the men, who were 
passing through the Garden at the time to their work, was a pleasing 
instance of spontaneous kindness and sympathy. 


362 Wricut, Black Duck Nesting at Boston. [at 

Three days later there were but four ducklings, one having been 
lost. And the following day the. whole family had disappeared. 
The explanation furnished me by an employee was that he was 
told by a man, who himself observed the proceeding, that he had 
seen at five o’clock in the morning the mother duck and young 
travelling over the Garden lawns and crossing Beacon Street in 
the direction of the Charles River Basin, which is just in the rear 
of the houses. Such a walk by the brood would certainly not be 
beyond their powers, taking their way through the extension of 
Arlington Street to the esplanade bordering the basin. The act 
of the mother was entirely consistent with her apparent purpose 
the previous year, when she was intercepted and her ducklings 
taken away to the city Zoo. Doubtless this brood of four, then 
but a week old, perished on the open waters of the Basin, unable to 
cope with their roughness when strong winds arise. Thus we have 
an instance of a Black Duck, to a considerable extent domesticated 
by living among men so that she nests confidingly where they 
resort in large numbers, upon possessing her young apparently 
urged by a desire to get them away to a less frequented place 
under a mistaken idea about their relative safety, and so jeopard- 
izing their lives. Four days later, May 30, the pair was again 
on the Garden pond without their ducklings, but, as far as my 
knowledge goes, they only continued to visit the pond for a day or 
two and then absented themselves. In October and November 
a pair of Black Ducks, presumably this same pair, was observed on 
the Garden pond upon many of the days and were last seen visiting 
their old haunt on November 24. 

When the spring of 1917 was opening and the ice began to break 
on the ponds, so that merely a small area of open water had 
appeared at one end of the Frog Pond, the pair of Black Ducks 
—with scarcely a doubt the same pair which had nested on the 
island in 1915 and 1916 —so closely watchful of conditions as to 
discern this, once more appeared on the wing over the Garden 
and, perceiving an unbroken surface of ice on the pond there, 
continued their flight to the Common, where was the bit of open 
water. This occurred on March 26. On the following day the 
Garden pond came to be almost half free from ice, and, upon my 
morning visit, the pair was found to be swimming and tipping 


eee A Wriaut, Black Duck Nesting at Boston. 363 


happily in its waters, availing of the very first opportunity to be 
in their old haunt again, it may be said indeed, delaying scarcely 
an hour after the partial opening up. Their presence on several 
days thereafter was recorded. On April 1 the duck was observed 
on the island. On the 4th the water was drawn off, and the 
next day the pair was seen flying in, but they left directly, as the 
pond had been drained to its bottom. For seven days then the 
ducks were not seen, and it seemed as if they might have been 
deterred from their purpose of again breeding in the Garden. 
But on the 13th they were back and paddling in the mere shallow 
ditch which runs centrally through the pond and still retained a 
little water. It was five days later when the water was restored 
and the pair began their continuous occupancy of the pond. This 
season it seemed as if there were a purposed delay on their part 
in beginning the nesting until the water should have been returned, 
as by their experience of previous seasons they might feel assur- 
ance it would be. On the first day of their return, April 18, the 
female was seen investigating the island. The following day she 
went upon it several times successively during observation and 
seemed to be making choice of a spot on the southerly side, for 
she again and again tested its fitness by adjusting herself upon it. 
Six days later she was seen on her nest, probably to deposit her 
first egg, and upon each day following the same record ‘duck on 
her nest’ was made up to May 29 inclusive, when at 7.20 4.M. 
she moved down to the water with a brood of eight ducklings 
following her. The drake was not present at the time. The 
egg-laying would seem, therefore, to have occupied eight days, 
April 25 to May 2, and the period of incubation to have extended 
to May 28, when the young were hatching, and thus upon the 
water the day following. Again mother duck had accomplished 
a successful nesting, free from interference. It had been possible 
just to discern her form as she sat on her nest, the protective color- 
ation of her plumage blending completely with her surroundings. 
And later, when the grasses and lily leaves grew up around her, 
she was almost entirely concealed from view. So as she probably 
maintained her fixed position when boats full of people rounded 
the island, it is likely that their occupants were unaware of her 
presence. But many bird-lovers followed the course of her family 


364 Wricut, Black Duck Nesting at Boston. nt 
life with much interest and pleasure. I was informed that the 
brood was safely cared for in the Garden up to July 4, or a day or 
two later, when the ducklings had come to be more than five 
weeks old; not one had been lost. But the whole family then 
disappeared, and it was surmised that the mother following her 
bent, as observed in the two preceding years, had led them over 
to the Charles River Basin. 

In October I found the mother and one immature duck on the 
Garden pond. The young duck was about half grown, and the 
wing quills were very little developed. It was regarded as proba- 
bly a duckling of a second brood, raised outside the Garden; 
for 1 have since been informed that a mother Black Duck with two 
ducklings; probably three or four weeks old, was seen for a time 
in late summer on the esplanade bordering the Charles, where it 
is at a distance of a few hundred feet only from the Garden. So 
the other having been lost, presumably on the Basin, she may have 
eventually led her remaining duckling to the Garden pond now 
so familiar to her. Here it remained continuously up to the time 
of the closing of the pond with ice, having grown to about full 
size and developed power of flight. Sometimes in the later days 
of the autumn the mother was absent and the young duck alone, 
and again on many days not only was the mother present, but 
several others, both male and female, which came in company 
with the original pair to its Garden haunt on excursions from other 
waters. And it is not unlikely that some of these visitors were 
members of the brood raised in early summer which departed from 
the Garden and, it was surmised, went to the Charles River Basin 
at the time of their disappearance. 

So the Public Garden has been the successful nesting place of a 
pair of Black Ducks for the last three years, 1915, 1916, 1917, fol- 
lowing an earlier attempt at nesting in 1911 which was not success- 
ful. These breeding ducks are to be regarded as_ essentially 
wild, not having been in the care of the city or owned by the park 
department, but belonging to flocks which year by year have 
arrived upon ponds and reservoirs in this vicinity and have win- 
tered here in considerable numbers. They come and go at pleasure. 
So these pairs of the Garden, undoubtedly of such origin, have 
lived their own free life and come and gone according to their 


oe | Wriaut, Black Duck Nesting at Boston. 365 


desire, owned and controlled by no human agency. Protective 
laws now in operation for several years have materially furthered 
the possibilities and even probabilities of just such an occurrence 
as the choice for breeding of a much frequented city garden like 
the Boston Public Garden, possessing a pond and suitable island 
within it. And as wild ducks just from a fully wild life soon come 
to feel at ease and safe, gradually losing apprehensive fear, when 
unmolested in their occupancy of park and reservation waters 
during their migratory flights, which the extended visits of wild 
ducks! to Jamaica and Leverett ponds in recent years have shown, 
so these Black Ducks of the Public Garden, which already had lived 
in some degree of confiding association with man on neighboring 
waters, soon became as wonted to the peopled garden and as little 
apprehensive upon near approach as domesticated ducks of farm 
or public park. Yet they retain their freedom, as the latter do 
not, and live their own lives unmodified by the control of man. 
This is cause for congratulation and gratitude to the agencies 
which have so efficiently and earnestly labored for laws covering 
the protection of our wild fowl. 

It may be stated that the Boston Public Garden has an area of 
twenty-four acres and is located somewhat centrally within the 
city, the Charles River Basin, however, lying in close proximity 
to its northern side. The pond occupies three and three-fourths 
acres of the whole area. It is shallow, not paved except around 
the margin, but has a muddy bottom, and it is bordered by granite 
curbing. In former years European Swans and for one or two 
seasons Muscovy Ducks were kept by the park department on the 
grounds during the season when the pond was open, but in these 
recent years of the nesting of the Black Ducks no other water fow] 
have lived within the Garden. The Blacks, therefore, have had 
undisputed possession, while the swans and domesticated ducks 
have been maintained at Franklin Park in connection with the 
city’s zodlogical collection there. 

In the spring of 1918, this pair of Black Ducks made its reappear- 
ance on March 25, when the pond was still incased in ice, making 
a circuit over the Garden, but not alighting. Two days later 


1Some Rare Wild Ducks wintering at Boston, Auk, XX VIT, Oct. 1910, pp. 390-408. 


ave 


366 Wriaut, Black Duck Nesting at Boston. July 


they made a brief visit, remaining a few minutes at the base of the 
fountain where already was a very small area of open water. On 
the 30th the pair was seen standing on the curbing upon the first 
day of a considerable opening up. On the following day the ice 
had almost entirely disappeared, and the Blacks were present, 
enjoying the open water. On April 1, at the time of my morning 
visit, the female, to my surprise, was seen on the spot of her nest 
of the previous year on the island, well settled upon it and occasion- 
ally drawing dead grasses and leaves with her bill about her. The 
drake was swimming on the pond. The day following I found 
the water was being drawn off for the annual spring cleaning, but 
the ducks were present. April 3 and 4, the pond had been drained, 
and the ducks were not present. But on April 5, again the duck 
was seen on her nest at the time of my morning visit, while laborers 
with hoes were scraping the bare bottom of the pond around the 
island. And a little later the pair was seen swimming in the central 
ditch, where some water remained. On the 6th, as the duck was 
not present, I visited the nest and found it empty; but upon the 
bottom of the pond at a spot nearby was the shell of a duck’s egg, 
indicating that she had laid her first egg, presumably, on the 
previous day when I had seen her on her nest. Then during the 
days following the pair absented themselves while the work of 
cleaning was completed. The water was restored on the 11th, 
and in another day the pond had filled. But the ducks did not 
promptly return. On the 16th, however, again the duck was seen 
on her nest in the morning, and it seemed likely that her nesting 


was now begun in earnest, but it did not prove so. The visits of - 


the pair were intermittent and transitory both to the Garden pond 
and the Frog Pond, and in late May they were no longer seen. 
At this time the pair of Blacks was replaced by a pair consisting 
of a Mallard Drake and a Black Duck, which were seen successive 
days, with a presumption that this pair in the absence of the Blacks 
had become their successors. Both pairs had been observed 
present on one or two occasions, when the Black Drake drove 
off the Mallard Drake, pursuing him from the Garden. But it 
eventuated that the Blacks seemed not to have a settled purpose 
to breed in the Garden this season, and so finally at the end of 
May they relinquished the pond and island to this rival pair whose 


ert val AuLEN, New England Horned Ouls. 367 


nesting now began, as indicated by the presence of the drake alone 
on the pond morning by morning and the absence from view of 
the duck, as she presumably occupied her nest on the island, 
concealed by the vegetation which had arisen upon its surface. 


THREE INTERESTING GREAT HORNED OWLS FROM 
NEW ENGLAND.! 


BY GLOVER M. ALLEN. 


Durine the cold winter of 1917-18, New England had an 
unusual visitation of Great Horned Owls. A large number were 
killed or captured and many found their way into taxidermists’ 
shops. Among several received that winter at the State Museum 
at Augusta, Maine, I noticed on a recent visit, a single one that 
appeared to be uncommonly dark, and on my expressing an interest 
in the bird, Curator Thomas A. James of the Museum very gener- 
ously presented the specimen to the Boston Society of Natural 
History. It was an adult female taken at Scarborough, Maine, 
about February 7, 1918, and received in the flesh by Mr. James on 
the 9th. Through the kindness of Mr. Outram Bangs, it has been 
compared carefully with the series of Great Horned Owls from 
eastern North America in the Museum of Comparative Zodlogy, 
and it seems to be without doubt referable to the dark northern 
race, typical in Labrador, Bubo virginianus heterocnemis Ober- 
holser. It is especially interesting, however, in being even darker 
than the generality of these northern birds, with a considerable 
clouding of blackish in addition to the black barrings that thickly 
cover the breast, and in almost lacking the usual bright buffy 
markings. Its whole appearance is therefore unusually sooty. 
It agrees with the Newfoundland and Labrador birds in having 
the facial disks dark, a mixture of black, gray and tawny, instead 
of nearly clear tawny, as in typical wirginianus. The feet are 
dusky gray, finely speckled with darker, instead of the usual 


1 Read before the Nuttall Ornithological Club, January, 1919. 


368 ALLEN, New England Horned Ouls. [fax 


ochraceous color, though in this respect it is nearly matched by a 
bird from Newfoundland. 

In 1897, Mr. Arthur H. Norton (Proc. Portland Soc. Nat. 
Hist., Vol. 2, p. 103) recorded as a bird new to the Maine list, a 
very dark-faced Horned Owl in the collection of the Portland 
Society of Natural History, that was killed many years previously 
and given the Society in March, 1870. It was taken near Port- 
land, Maine. Mr. Norton referred it to the race saturatus as 
then understood (now restricted to the dark form of British 
Columbia), and described it as “very dark brown, or blackish 
brown”’ above with fine grayish marks; “very wide dusky bars 
below, having a tendency to mass on the breast; feet and bases 
of the feathers below deep tawny (much deeper than in any speci- 
men of virginianus examined)”; wing 400 mm.; tarsus with num- 
erous dusky bars. No doubt this, too, is an example of the sub- 
species heterocnemis and came from the north. 

Later, Knight (in his ‘Birds of Maine,’ 1908, p. 260-261) dis- 
missed this record with the remark that Mr. Norton’s specimen is 
“not much darker in coloration than many individuals seen else- 
where: It is indeed possible that all our Maine birds are nearer 
the northern form and may be better regarded as all being referable 
to it.” This is hardly the case, however, as the birds I have seen 
from southern and eastern Maine, taken in the breeding season, 
are clearly typical virginianus and agree with Massachusetts 
specimens in their clear russet facial disks and lighter coloration. 

A second Great Horned Owl of the 1917-18 flight was a very 
pallid female bird killed at the Mount Auburn Cemetery, Cam- 
bridge, Mass., by one of the employees of the cemetery, on Decem- 
ber 4, 1917. It was brought to the M. A. Frazar Company’s 
taxidermist establishment and I saw the bird in the flesh shortly 
after. Through Mr. Frazar’s interest the bird was obtained 
for the Boston Society of Natural History. During the past 
winter, 1918-19, there has again been a considerable flight of Great 
Horned Owls. Mr. Frazar says that over twenty had been received 
at his shop before January 1, 1919, where in ordinary years 
scarcely half a dozen come in, during an equal period. Among 
the birds of this year’s flight was another pale individual which 
has also been secured by the Boston Society of Natural History. 


ie 


aaa ALLEN, New England Horned Owls. 369 


According to the person who obtained it, it was picked up dead 
in Somerville, Mass., on November 26, 1918, and its. death was 
supposed to be due to its having flown against a house, or some 
other obstruction, a somewhat unusual fate for an Owl. Both 
these birds are very similar and should evidently be referred to 
the same subspecies. The Mt. Auburn bird has pure whitish 
facial disks, and feet immaculate above, though lightly speckled 
with darker at the sides. The Somerville bird, a male, has the 
whitish facial disks somewhat washed with pale ochraceous, but 
the feet are pure white. A comparison of these two specimens with 
the pallid western birds seems to indicate that of the two large 
races of the interior of North America, they are best referred to 
the northern, Bubo virginianus wapacuthu (Gmelin), the Arctic 
Horned Owl. They are not quite so dark above as the bird of the 
interior United States, Dakota to Nevada (B. v. occidentalis) and 
are slightly paler in the facial area. In measurements they are of 
maximum size, the female with a wing of 390 mm., the male 375 
mim., hence are not to be referred to the other pallid western races 
which are smaller. The supposed breeding range of this subspecies 
is north-central Canada, from Hudson Bay to Slave River, migrat- 
ing occasionally south in winter to the northern United States. 
There is one previous record for this race in Massachusetts, namely 
a bird killed at Waltham, November 30, 1867, by C. J. Maynard. 
This specimen was formerly in the Museum of Comparative Zodl- 
ogy, but has lately been given to the Boston Society of Natural 
History, so that the latter institution now has all three of these 
Massachusetts birds. All seem remarkably similar and no doubt 
represent this Arctic race. In his‘ Birds of the Cambridge Region’ 
(1906, p. 204) Mr. William Brewster considers at length the 
status and correct name for this specimen and considers that 
Hoy’s name subarcticus is more certainly applicable than the 
barbaric wapacuthu. In the paper previously cited, Norton 
records a bird probably of the same form under the name B. ». 
arcticus. It was presented to the Portland Society alive on Decem- 
ber 6, 1869, and was said to be from Maine, though the exact 
locality was not then specified. Its color above “is pale, hoary 
gray: top of head much as in wrginianus: below, white with 
numerous narrow, dusky bars on the feathers: feet, white, nearly 


370 Loomis, The Galapagos Albatross. suk 


immaculate;. . .wing about 380 mm.” The color of the facial 
disks is not mentioned. Knight in his ‘ Birds of Maine,’ prefers 
to treat such birds as “extremely pale or faded individuals of the 
typical Horned Owl,” considering the species non-migratory. 
This course, however, seems hardly justifiable, and to my mind 
the present additional records of birds identical respectively with 
the Labrador and the northwest Canadian forms seem sufficient 
proof that they have come as occasional migrants from these 
precarious portions of the species’ range, driven from their usual 
year-round haunts by some causes which we have not yet wholly 
fathomed; but no doubt chiefly through failure of the food supply 
in their home regions. These constitute the first definite record 
for Massachusetts of the Labrador Horned Owl, and the second 
and third records for the Arctic Horned Owl in the same state. 


VARIATION IN THE GALAPAGOS ALBATROSS. 
BY LEVERETT MILLS LOOMIS. 
Plates XIV-—XVIi 


For an albatross, the Galapagos Albatross (Diomédea irrorata) 
has a peculiar distribution. It breeds in the Southern Hemisphere 
within less than two degrees of the equator and, so far as known, 
only on Hood Island of the Galapagos Archipelago. After repro- 
duction it apparently migrates southward, as far at least as the 
coast of Peru. 

The island isolation of this bird during its breeding season and 
its large size render it an attractive subject for a study of variation. 
The most striking differences occur in the coloration of the downy 
young and in the form of the bill in sexually mature individuals 
taken at their rookery. 


1T am under obligations to Mr. Charles B. Barrett and Mr. L. R. Reynolds for the 
photographs reproduced in these plates. Mr. Reynolds photographed the downy young 
and the bills showing side aspect and Mr. Barrett enlarged the latter to natural size and 
photographed the other bills. 


THE AUK, VOL. XXXVI. PLATE XIV. 


Downy YouNnG OF DIOMEDEA IRRORATA 


PLATE XV. 


THE AUK, VOL. XXXVI. 


DIOMEDEA IRRORATA 
Culmen from above (nat 


ize) 


. 


S) 


THE AUK, VOL. XXXVI. PLATE XVI. 


DIOMEDEA TRRORATA. Bills from the side 


Rae | Loomis, The Galapagos Albatross. 371 


Independent of age and sex, the downy young have a light 
phase and a dark phase connected by intermediates, constituting 
a definite dichromatism. Plate XIV shows the upper surface of 
the extremes in primary natal down (protoptyles). In the light 
specimen (1180 C. A. S.) the general aspect was light drab-gray 
and in the dark one (1185 C. A. S.) dark drab, medially lighter 
below and varied with dull cream color above, especially anteriorly. 
It may be, also, that there is a slight dichromatism in the adults, 
for some nesting individuals are darker than others. It is signi- 
ficant that the only transition nestling (1204 C. A. S.) before me 
is passing from the dark phase of the natal down into the darker 
style of the definitive plumage. 

To what extent dichromatism prevails among the albatrosses 
is unknown. Certain of the plumages esteemed to be of specific 
significance by some systematists I believe to be dichromatic. 
The whole question of color variation in the albatrosses, and also 
in the other Tubinares, needs a thorough investigation. 

In plates XV and XVI are illustrated the extremes in the general 
shape of the bill in a series of thirty-three breeding birds obtained 
on their rookery during eight days ending July 2, 1906. These 
variations occur independently of sex and, so far as ascertained, 
of age, the birds being sexually mature. Plate XV exhibits the 
difference in the width of the bill in two males (1199 and 1221 
C. A. S.). In the stouter bill the basal width of the upper man- 
dible is 35.2 mm. and in the slenderer one 31 mm. Plate XVI shows 
the variation in the concavity of the culmen in two females (1208 
and 1225 C. A. S.). The greater concavity measures 6.5 mm. in 
depth and the lesser 2.5 mm. The latericorn and ramicorn, it 
will be noticed, also vary in form. Furthermore, the nasal tubes 
in the entire series of specimens vary; even in the same individuals 
the tubes may be unlike in shape. In their general dimensions, 
the specimens differ as follows:! 

Fourteen males: Wing, 550-593 mm. (572); tail, 142-158 (149); 
culmen, 146-160 (153.2); basal depth of upper mandible, 30.3- 
33.6 (31.7); basal width of upper mandible, 31-35.2 (33.4); tarsus, 
91-103 (95.3); middle toe and claw, 125-138 (131.6). 


'T am indebted to Mr. Edward Winslow Gifford for making the measurements here 
summarized. 


at Herrick, Audubon’s Bibliography. [jue 


Nineteen females: Wing, 535-565 mm. (548); tail, 134-148 
(139); culmen, 134.8-148.8 (141.2); basal depth of upper mandible, 
29.6-32.6 (30.7); basal width of upper mandible, 30-33.5 (32); 
tarsus, 88.3-94.4 (91.6); middle toe and claw, 121.4-131.4 (125.2). 

The differences recorded in the foregoing paragraphs emphasize 
the necessity of large series in determining the range of variation 
in the tubinarine species, and the futility of attributing specific 
value to similar differences on no better evidence than single 
specimens. 

The future of the dichromatic and structural variations of the 
Galapagos Albatross is unknown, as is also the future of the island 
geographic variations of more widely distributed species. It is 
held, therefore, that any system of classification that attempts to 
forecast the remote future of such variations is unscientific, and 
destined to be discarded like the Quinary System that flourished 
in the time of Swainson. 


AUDUBON’S BIBLIOGRAPHY. 
BY FRANCIS H. HERRICK. 


At the end of the second volume of ‘Audubon the Naturalist’! 
published at the close of 1917, I added a bibliography of 240 titles, 
selective in respect to biography, criticism and miscellany, but as 
nearly complete as it was then possible for me to make it in other 
respects. The most important section was evidently that con- 
taining Audubon’s principal works, five or, perhaps we should say, 
seven in number, namely: (1) ‘The Birds of America’ (4 vols. of 
plates only, in folio); (2) ‘Ornithological Biography’ (5 vols. 
Svo. of text to No. 1); (8) ‘A Synopsis of the Birds of North 
America’ (1 vol.); (4) ‘The Birds of America’ (7 vols. of revised 
text and plates of Nos. 1 and 2, in octavo); (5) ‘The Vivipar- 


1‘ Audubon the Naturalist: A History of his Life and Time.’ In 2 vols. New York, 
1917. 


— 
. . 


os | Herrick, Audubon’s Bibliography. 373 


ous Quadrupeds of North America’ (3 vols. of plates only, 
in folio); (6) ‘The Viviparous Quadrupeds of North America’ 
(3 vols. of text only, in octavo); (7) ‘The Quadrupeds of North 
America’ (3 vols of revised text and plates of Nos. 5 and 6, in 
octavo). Four of these, the folio ‘Birds’ and ‘Quadrupeds,’ 
the ‘Biography’ and the ‘Synopsis’ enjoyed but one complete 
edition under their respective original forms. Accordingly it 
would seem a simple task to prepare a full, correct, and therefore 
final bibliographic statement regarding so short a list. Such, 
however, is far from the case, since the ‘ Birds’ and “Quadrupeds,’ 
in their reduced and final form, appeared before, during and after 
the Civil War, in numerous ‘editions’ or issues, which have proved 
so difficult to trace that no correct account of them has appeared 
up to the present time. 

While bibliographic details are about the last subject to which a 
student of nature, with freedom of will unimpaired, would turn 
for refreshment, in the present case they afford a certain modicum 
of reward in biographical and historical interest; it is also apparent 
that possessors of such valuable and attractive works as Audubon’s 
‘Birds’ and ‘Quadrupeds’ have proved, are entitled to know the 
edition which their holding represents, as well as the time and cir- 
cumstances which called it forth. 

In preparing the list, to which reference was made, the principal 
public libraries in eastern America and western Europe were con- 
sulted, but that, it seems, was not enough, since correspondents 
in different parts of the country have pointed to certain errors and 
omissions, proving that significant sets of these works are quite 
as likely to be in private hands, or the smaller collections of books, 
as in the classic shades of the metropolis. For this service I am 
chiefly indebted to Rev. E. L. Shettles, of Brenham, Texas, and to 
Messrs. Henry Brannon, of Portsmouth, Ohio, Edward H. John- 
son, of Philadelphia, and Charles E. Stratton, of Boston. 

When we remember that large libraries have sometimes been 
guilty of eliminating titles and reducing the number of volumes 
which the author intended his work should represent; that Audu- 
bon’s ‘Birds’ and ‘Quadrupeds’ in octavo form, were issued to 
subscribers in paper-covered parts that were liable to be dispersed 
or lost during the long period of disorganization which followed the 


374 Herrick, Audubon’s Bibliography. ers 


outbreak of the Civil War, and especially in the South where many 
of the naturalist’s patrons resided; that the publication of first 
editions usually extended over a period of many years, that from 
1854 to 1861 one or the other of Audubon’s two sons was con- 
stantly projecting new issues of their father’s standard works, 
and finalty that when the collected parts came to be bound many 
defective sets were pieced out of two or more distinct editions,— 
some of the difficulties involved will be better understood. The 
present list is more nearly correct than any which has preceded it, 
but it would be remarkable if further verification and emendation 
were not needed. 

It will be seen that the text of Audubon’s ‘ Birds of America,’ 
in its revised octavo form, has enjoyed no less than nine editions, 
namely (1) 1840-1844; (2) 1856; (3) 1859; (4) 1860; (5 and 6) 
1861, one issue with, and one without, plates; (7) 1863, condition 
unknown; (8) 1865; (9) 1871. Excepting the possibility of error 
in one unverified notice (Nos. 14 and 16, below) there have ap- 
peared seven editions of text and plates combined. 

The text of the ‘Quadrupeds’ has passed through four editions, 
namely (1) 1846-1853, text alone; (2) 1849-1854, text and plates; 
(3) 1854, text and plates; (4) 1856, text and plates, while the com- 
plete work, in octavo form, has appeared not once only, as formerly 
supposed, but three times. 

For further detailed notes on the several editions the reader 
is referred to ‘Audubon the Naturalist,’ volume ii, Bibliography, 
Nos. 1-14 (which appear in brackets in the following list), pages 
401-409. 

Revised List of Audubon’s Principal Works in their Several Editions. 
1 (1). AupuBON, JOHN JAMES: 

The Birds of America, from Original Drawings by John James 
Audubon, Fellow of the Royal Societies of London & Edinburgh 
and of the Linnean & Zodlogical Societies of London, Member 
of the Natural History Society of Paris, of the Lyceum of New 
York, &e. &e. &e. Issued without text, titles excepted, to sub- 
scribers, in 87 Numbers of 5 plates each (at 2 guineas a Part), or 
435 copper-plate engravings, colored by hand, and representing 
1,065 life-size figures of 489 supposedly distinct species of 
of North American birds, in double elephant folio. Published 
by the Author. London, 1827-1838. 


Rolex ae | Herrick, Audubon’s Bibliography. 375 


- 2(2). Avupuson, Joun James, F. R. SS. L. & E. (with list of 
Societies) : 

Ornithological Biography, or an account of the habits of the 
Birds of the United States of America; accompanied by 
descriptions of the objects represented in the work entitled 
The Birds of America, and interspersed with delineations of 
American scenery and manners. 5 vols., royal 8vo, Edin- 
burgh, MDCCCXXXI-MDCCCXXXIX. 

Volume 1 was also issued in Philadelphia in 1831 and again 
in 1835, and volume 2 in Boston in 1835. 

3 (3). AupuBon, JoHn James, F.R. SS. L. & E. Member of 
various scientific associations in Europe and America: 

A Synopsis of the Birds of North America. Pp. i-xi, 1-359. 
Svo, Adam and Charles Black, Edinburgh; Longman, Rees, 
Brown, Green and Longman, London, MDCCCXXXIX. 

4 (4).- Aupuson, JoHn James, F.R. SS. L. & E. (&c., &c): 

The Birds of America from Drawings made in the United 
States and its Territories. 7 vols. of text and plates, royal 
Svo. Published by the Author and (partly) issued by J. B. 
Chevalier. New York and Philadelphia, 1840-1844. 

First octavo edition of revised text and plates combined; 
issued to subscribers in 100 Parts each with 5 lithographic 
colored plates, or 500 plates in all, at $1.00 a Part. 

5 (5). Aupuson, JoHN JaMEs, F.R. 5S. &c., &c., and, Bachman, 
Tue Rev”. Joun, D. D. &e. &e.: 

The Viviparous Quadrupeds of North America. 3 vols. of 150 
lithographic colored plates; imperial folio. Published by 
J. J. Audubon, New York, 1845-1848. 

Vol. I. Parts 1-10, pll: 1-50, 1845. 
Vol. II. Parts 11-20, pll. 51-100, 1846. 
Vol. III. Parts 21-30, pll. 101-150, 1848. 

Issued to subscribers in 30 Parts of 5 plates each, size 28 x 22 
inches, to compose 3 volumes (though sometimes bound in 2 
with one title omitted), at $10 a Part, or $300, without text 
except titles, tables of contents and names on plates. 

| 6 (6). AupusoNn, JoHn James, F. R. S. &c., &c., and BacHMaNn, 
| THE Rev. Joun, D. D. &e. &e.; 
The Viviparous Quadrupeds of North America. 3 vols., royal 


* 


Fe 


376 Herrick, Audubon’s Bibliography. 
Svo. Published by J. J. Audubon and V. G. Audubon, New 
York and London (in part), 1846-1853. 

First edition, without plates, issued to subscribers as text 
to the foregoing. 

“Vol. I. Pp. i-xvi, 1-890. Published by J. J. Audubon, 
New York, 1846. 

Vol. I. (European ed.). The same as foregoing with 

imprint of Messrs. Wiley & Putnam. London, 1847. 

Vol. Il. Pp. 1-336. Published by V. G. Audubon, New 

York, 185i: 

Vol. II. Pp. i-vi, 1-257. Published by V. G. Audubon. 
New York, 1853. 

A supplement of 93 pages and 6 colored plates, added in 1854, 
and apparently issued to all previous subscribers to this and 
the large folio, is sometimes bound up with the third volume of 
the present edition, when the date of which is usually quoted 
as “1854.” 

7. AUDUBON, JOHN JAMES, F.S. R. (&c., &c.), and BAcHMAN, THE 

Rev. Joun, D. D. (&c., &c.): | 

The Quadrupeds of North America. 3 vols. royal Svo, with | 
155 lithographic colored plates. Published by V. G. Audubon. | 
New York, 1849-1854. | 

Vol. I. Nos. 1-10, pp. i-viu,, 1-883: 1849. | 
Vol. I]. - Nos. 11—20; pp: 1-384: MDCCCLI. 
Vol: III. Nos. 21-81, pp. ii—v, 1-848: 1854. 

First edition of text and plates in octavo; issued to subscribers 
in 31 Parts (in printed covers) of 5 plates each, at $1.00 a Part, 
the number of plates being reduced to 155 by the omission of one 
of the small plates in the supplement noticed above. A set in the 
original (unbound) paper-covered Parts was quoted by Samuel N. 
Rhoads in his catalogue (No. 39) on “Auduboniana and other 
Nature Books”’ issued in 1919. 

8 (7). AupDUBON, JoHN JAMEs, F. R. S. (&c., &c.), and BACHMAN, 

Tue Rev. Joun, D. D. (&c., &c.): 

The Quadrupeds of North America. 8 vols. royal 8vo, with F 
155 lithographic colored plates. Published by V. G. Audubon, 
New York, 1854. . 

Second edition of text and plates. 


as | Herrick, Audubon’s Bibliography. * ota 


9. AUDUBON, JOHN JaMEs, F. R. S. (&c., &c.), and BAcHMAN, THE 


Rev. Joun, D. D. (&e., &c.): 

The Quadrupeds of North America. 3 vols., royal 8vo., with 
155 lithographic colored plates. Published by V. G. Audubon, 
New York, 1856. 

The third and, so far as known, the last octavo edition of 
text and plates. Issued like the two preceding in 31 Parts; 
According to Rev. Mr. E. L. Shettles, of Brenham, Texas, who 
has furnished me with data concerning this hitherto unnoticed 
edition, the plates bear the legend: “Drawn on stone by 
Hitchcock.” 


10 (8).. AupuBoN, JoHN James, F. R. S. (&c., &c.): 


1 


The Birds of America, from Drawings made in the United 
States and their Territories. Vols. I-VII, royal 8vo. Pub- 
lished by V. G. Audubon, (R. Craighead, printer and stereo- 
typer; 52 Vesey Street, New York, 1856. 

The second octavo edition of Audubon’s Birds, with 500 
plates, but now appearing for the first time with colored back- 
grounds. According to Rhoads (loc. cit.) several of the plates 
were redrawn for this edition; the pagination is identical with 
that of the first edition, “but the text has been reset in a 
slightly different style of type.” 

AvupuBOoN, JoHN JAMES, F. R. S. (&c., &c.): 

The Birds of America, from Drawings made in the United 
States and their Territories. Vols. I-VII, royal 8vo., with 
500 colored lithographic plates. Issued by V. G. Audubon. 
Roe Lockwood & Son, 411 Broadway. New York, 1859. 

The third octavo edition of the text and plates of the Birds. 
On the second page of volume 1 appears: “ Entered according to 
Act of Congress 1839 by J. J. Audubon, in the clerk’s office of 
the district court of the United States for the Southern district 
of New York,” and in the lower left hand corner the follow- 
ing: “R. Craighead, Printer, Stereotyper, and Electrotyper, 
Caxton Building, 81, 83, and 85 Centre St.” According to 
Rey. Mr. Shettles, who possesses a copy of this unnoticed 
edition, the paging of the respective volumes (omitting front 
matter, which is presumably the same as in No. 4 of the pre- 


378 


12. 


(er 


Herrick, Audubon’s Bibliography. Snly 


ceding list!) is as follows; 246, 199, 233, 321, 346, 456, and 
372; the distribution of plates follows the first edition (No. 4, 
above). The plates bear the legend: “Lith., Printed, and 
Colored by Bowen and Co., Phila.” 

AUDUBON, JOHN JAMES, F. R. S. (&c., &c.): 

The Birds of America, from Drawings made in the United 
States and their Territories. Vols. I-VII, royal 8vo., with 
500 lithographic colored plates. Issued by V. G. Audubon, 
Roe Lockwood & Son, 411 Broadway. New York, 1860. 

The fourth octavo edition of the text and plates of the 
‘Birds.’ According to my correspondent, Mr. Henry Bannon, 
a set of this unnoticed edition is in possession of the Public 
Library at Portsmouth, Ohio (volume 2, however, being from 
the third edition of 1859). 


13 (9). AupuBON, JoHN James, F. R. S. (&c., &c.): 


The Birds of America; from original Drawings by John 
James Audubon, Fellow of the Royal Societies of London & 
Edinburgh, &c., &c., &e. Reissued by J. W. Audubon. 1 vol. 
of 106 double elephant folio plates, in chromolithography, by 
J. Bien, 180 Broadway, representing 151 of the original copper 
plates. Roe Lockwood & Son, Publishers. New York, 1860. 

The only (partial and greatly inferior) reissue of the original 
folio. 


14 (10). AvupuBoN, JoHN JAMES: 


The Birds of America, from Drawings made in the United 
States and their Territories, by John James Audubon, F. R. S., 
&c. Reissued by J. W. Audubon. Vols. I-VII, royal 8vo. 
Text only. Roe Lockwood & Son, Publishers. New York, 
1861. 

Vol. I, pp. i-viii, 11-246; Vol. II, pp.. i-viii, 11-200; Vol. 
III, pp. i-viii, 9-234; Vol. IV, pp. i-viii, 9-322; Vol. V, pp. 
i-vili, 9-346; Vol. VI, pp. i-vili, 2-322; Vol. VII (not seen).? 

First edition (in brown stamped cloth), without plates, 
and fifth octavo edition of the text of the ‘Birds’; apparently 


1See © Audubon the sNaturalist,’ loc. cit. 

2 According to a copy quoted for me in detail, pp. 1-360 to which are added index to 
folic volume of plates pp. i-iv and index to the whole work pp. 361-372. The set to which 
this volume belonged was bound uniform with a copy of the 1860 folio plates and was 
obviously intended to accompany it as shown by index to plates, mentioned in Vol. VII.— 
Witmer STONE. 


~ il Herrick, Audubon’s Bibliography. 379 


issued as text to the imperfect folio (see No. 13) described 
above. Rhoads (loc. cit.) lists, with a set of this edition, 2 
vols. of 500 uncolored plates, in octavo, “bound in cloth to 
nearly match the seven volumes of text.” The plates in this 
instance seem to have been issued to favor a particular pur- 


chaser. 
15 (11). AvupuBoN, JoHN Jamss, F. R. S. (&c., &c.): 
“The Birds of America’ . . . . Reissued by J. W. Audubon. 


Vols. I-VII, imperial 8vo., with 500 lithographic colored 
plates, 10 X 7 inches. Roe Lockwood & Son, New York, 
1861. 

Fifth complete octavo edition (and sixth of the text) of the 
‘Birds.’ Reference partly from Coues’ ‘ Birds of the Colorado 
Valley,’ Bibliographical Appendix: “List of Faunal Publica- 
tions relating to North American Ornithology”? (Washington, 
1878). 

16 (12). AupuUBON, JoHN JAMES: 

‘The Birds of North America: a popular and scientific 
description of the Birds of the United States and _ their 
territories. New Edition. New York, 1863. 

Not seen; supposed by Coues to be a reissue of the edition 
of 1856 or of 1861. If complete, the sixth octavo edition (and, 
if without plates, the second edition of the text alone) of the 
‘Birds.’ As to plates, see note under 14. 

17 (13). AvuDuBON, JOHN JAMES: 

“The Birds of America’....8 vols., 8vo. New York, 1865. 

The eighth edition of the text of the ‘ Birds,’ and according 
to Coues a reissue of the edition of the text only, by J. W. 
Audubon, in 1861 (see No. 14 above), but in 8 instead of 7 
volumes. 

18 (14). AupusBon, JoHN JamEs, F. R. S. (&c., &c.): 

‘The Birds of America,’ from Drawings made in the United 
States and their Territories. Vols. I-VIII, imperial 8vo. 
George R. Lockwood, late Roe Lockwood & Son, 812 Broad- 
way, New York. No date (1871.) 

Vol. I, pp. i-vui, i-xv (memoir), 11-246, pll. 1-70; Vol. II, 
pp. 1-vui, 11-199, pll. 71-140; Vol. III, pp. i-viti, 9-233, pill. 
141-210; Vol. IV, pp: i-vii, 9-321, pll. 211-280; Vol. V, 


380 Ericusen, Birds of Liberty County, Ga. ie 


pp. i-viii, 9-346, pll. 281-250; Vol. VI, pp. i-vu, 9-298; 
Vol. VII, pp. i-vii, 9-285, pll. 395-440; Vol. VIII, pp. i-viii, 
9-256, pll. 441-500. 

The seventh complete (? see Nos. 14 and 16, above), last 
and ninth edition of the text of Audubon’s ‘ Birds.’ 

Sets of this issue, but without plates (and also bearing no 
date) were apparently circulated to some extent; at least one, 
answering to this description, was offered for sale in New 
York in January of this year. 


SOME SUMMER BIRDS OF LIBERTY COUNTY, 
GEORGIA. 


BY W. J. ERICHSEN. 


To so thoroughly investigate the summer bird life of any selected 
area as to leave but slight room for belief that additional species, 
unsuspected of breeding in the area, would ever be subsequently 
discovered, would require continuous field work extendmg over a 
period of several years; therefore the present paper, based on 
notes made by the writer during a ten months’ residence, from 
January 3 to November 1, 1913, at Allenhurst, Liberty County, 
Georgia, can in no wise be considered as being more than a brief 
review of the more common and characteristic breeding birds of 
the county. It is rather a preliminary list, intended for further 
elaboration by, and as information for, future workers in the field 
which it covers, and for the use of anyone who may be contemplat- 
ing the compilation of a complete list of the birds of the state, to 
both of whom it may, I hope, prove of some value. Very little 
has been put into print respecting the avifauna of the coast region, 
or indeed of any part of the state of Georgia, and anything pertain- 
ing thereto, however meagre and of a local character, is a welcome 
addition to our knowledge of the state’s bird life. It is with this 
realization that ornithological literature is almost destitute of 


oS rebel Ericusen, Birds of Liberty County, Ga. 381 


references to the birds of Georgia, that I contribute these few notes. 
There has recently come to my notice an article by H. B. Bailey 
in the ‘Bulletin of the Nuttall Ornithological Club,’ Vol. 8, Janu- 
ary, 1883, consisting of notes on a collection of eggs made in 
McIntosh and Wayne counties, Georgia, by Dr. S. W. Wilson. 
These counties adjoin Liberty County on the south and southwest 
respectively, and each presents a topography differing but little 
from that of that county. Dr. Wilson evidently made some:errors 
in identification and also in his notes relating to nesting sites 
selected and material used in nest construction by several of the 
species he met with. 

The avifauna of Liberty County is unusually varied and abun- 
dant, particularly as regards the water birds, and it is with regret 
that my short residence there would not permit of my securing 
sufficient notes on which to base a more complete list, including 
migrants and winter visitants. 

Weather conditions were favorable almost the entire spring and 
summer, admitting of nearly continuous field work which obviously 
has a considerable advantage over desultory observations where 
much work is to be done in a single nesting season. 

It may be well to make a few general remarks on the topography 
of the region under consideration and give some points of informa- 
tion in regard to the conditions affecting the distribution of summer 
bird life within the county. Although primarily intended as an 
exposition of some of the breeding species, it may not be out of 
place to add a few remarks on its bird life in general. With a 
combination of favorable topographical features the avifauna of the 
county is, as before stated, rich in species; the coast line of approxi- 
mately ten miles attracting numerous water birds, while the 
swamps, uplands, cultivated lands and pine barrens, the latter 
mostly free from undergrowth, all present conditions suitable for 
many species of land birds. The region covered by this paper also 
includes St. Catherine’s Island, a large sea island, which presents 
topographical features differing in no essential particulars from 
those of the mainland. This island and its surrounding waters 
are favorite resorts for large numbers of Ducks, Shorebirds, Herons, 
Gulls and Terns, as well as for many species of the smaller land 


birds. 


382 EricusEn, Birds of Liberty County, Ga. [ae 

As references in the list will show, most of my field work was done 
within a five mile radius of the town of Allenhurst, near the geo- 
graphical center of the county, excursions being made however 
to all other points of the region at frequent intervals, particularly 
to the coast, where several interesting finds were made. 

The region under consideration, in area the third largest county 
in Georgia, is a succession of swamps, rolling uplands, pine barrens, 
scrub oak woodland and abandoned rice plantations, which latter 
are particularly attractive to many species of marsh loving birds, 
such as various species of the Rallide, Blackbirds, Grackles, as 
well as many of the smaller swamp loving species. There is an 
absence of large heavily timbered areas in the county, due to the 
extensive operations of the large lumber plant located at Allen- 
hurst, although many smaller patches of fairly heavily timbered 
land still remain, particularly near the coast. 

Short leaf pine, ash, hickory, cypress, red and black gum, tupelo 
and various species of oak form the major portion of the forests, 
while large areas of more or less thickly matted and tangled under- 
growth are scattered all over the county, forming agreeable retreats 
for birds. Other forest trees found in more or less abundance 
include yellow poplar, sassafras, wild cherry, bay, laurel, red maple, 
red cedar, holly and palmetto, the latter three being particularly 
numerous on St. Catherine’s Island. Spanish bayonet thickets 
are almost a feature in the landscape in the vicinity of the coast 
and on the islands. 

Altamaha River is the largest in Liberty County, and separates 
it from Wayne County on the southwest. The swamps on both 
sides of this river are almost impenetrable, worthy rivals of the 
famous Okefinokee Swamp in southeast Georgia, and harbor 
rookeries of the Louisiana, Little Blue and Green Herons, and are the 
breeding place of several other species. Lack of time prevented 
me from doing much work here. The Canoochee to the north, a 
medium sized river, forms a part of the boundary line between 
Liberty and Bryan Counties, while the North and South Newport 
Rivers, in the southeastern section of the county, complete the list 
of principal streams. Beard’s Creek, a small branch emptying into 
the Altamaha, flows through the extreme eastern part of the county. 
Taking into consideration St. Catherine’s Sound, which extends 


” neal Ericusen, Birds of Liberty County, Ga. 383 


some distance westward between Bryan and Liberty Counties, 
we find that the latter is almost completely surrounded by bodies 
of water varying in size from the broad ocean to a small creek. 
Besides this, numerous small creeks traverse the interior, and 
several ponds, caused chiefly by the overflow from the abandoned 
rice fields, dot the county, particularly that section immediately 
bordering the Altamaha River. In years past this was one of the 
largest rice producing sections on the South Atlantic coast, but 
little evidence of this now remains, the once symmetrical network 
of irrigation canals now being but a labyrinth of canoe trails used 
by gunners. 

But a small portion of the county is under cultivation, the large 
areas of low swampy ground, covered much of the time with water, 
together with the abandoned rice fields, unfit for any other use, 
forbid any very extensive diversified farming. 

One of the most interesting experiences of my residence in the 
county was the noting of many wild turkeys in the swamps, Liberty 
County being probably one of the last strongholds of this species 
on the coast of Georgia. 

Although so far as I know I was the only one in Allenhurst inter- 
ested in bird study, I am indebted to many residents of the place 
for courtesies extended, particularly to the Dunlevie Lumber Com- 
pany, on whose motor car many trips were made out the tram road 
to points of interest which were accessible for hurried visits only 
by this means of transportation. 

It might be well to state here that expressions of the degrees of 
abundance of individuals in the county refer only to the occur- 
rence of the species during the nesting season of the period of my 
residence. Many of my notes were written during my residence 
in Liberty County and were intended for early publication, and 
I have allowed them to stand unaltered, with the exception of some 
few additions and omissions. 


1. Anhinga anhinga. Warer TurKey.— On May 11, I located a 
nest of the Water Turkey containing four eggs. It was built in a small 
willow, growing in two feet of water near the margin of a large rice field 
reservoir, and was placed about four feet above the surface of the water, 
being composed of a few sticks loosely laid together. There are many 
suitable nesting places among the abandoned rice plantations, and the 


384 EricusEen, Birds of Liberty County, Ga. [Aus 


presence there of many of these birds throughout the summer can be 
aecepted as conclusive evidence that the Water Turkey breeds abundantly. 

2. Hydranassa tricolor ruficollis. Lourstana Heron. 

3. Florida cerulea. Litrte BLur Heron. 

4. Butorides virescens virescens. GreeN Hreron.— On April 28 
I paid a visit to a rookery containing several nests of the Louisiana Heron 
besides many of the Little Blue and Green Herons. The nests of the two 
former species were all placed at such heights that, lacking the necessary 
equipment with which to make ascents, I was unable to examine their 
contents. There is little doubt, however, but that many of the nests 
contained full complements of eggs at this date, as the birds were con- 
tinually flying to and from them. The majority of the nests of the Green 
Heron were placed at low altitudes, mainly from four to twelve feet above 
the water which covered the swamp, and were easy of access. Of twelve 
nests examined, nine contained four eggs each, and the remaining three 
held three eggs each. 

Although the Green Heron must nest at many other localities in the 
county, these were the only nests that came under my observation. As 
for the Little Blue and Louisiana Herons, it is doubtful or extremely improb- 
able that any other colonies exist in the county, as personal efforts as well 
as those of several correspondents failed to discover any. 

This rookery is situated in a remote part of the Altamaha swamp near 
the McIntosh county line, and is probably known to but few persons. 
The majority of the trees are cypresses of large size, with a few isolated 
gums and willows on the outskirts. To my regret I was unable to pay 
a second visit to this interesting place. 

Since the above was written, I have been informed that a colony of 
American Egrets and Snowy Herons exists in the Altamaha river swamp 
near where the Seaboard Air Line Railway bridge crosses that river. 

5. Rallus elegans. Kina Raru.— On April 20, quite by accident, 
I stumbled upon a nest of the King Rail containing six eggs. On the 
afternoon of the 25th, I returned to the nest which then held eleven eggs, 
showing that the female had deposited an egg every day. The nest was 
placed fourteen inches above water, in rushes growing in an abandoned 
rice plantation, and was composed of the stalks and leaves of cattail flags. 
Additional field work would undoubtedly prove the King Rail to be a 
common breeder in the county. 

6. Rallus crepitans waynei. Wayne’s Criapper Rat.— This rail, 
is confined exclusively to salt water marshes and is abundant. The 
marshes bordering the mainland and inland islands north of St. Catherine’s 
island are their favorite resorts, although they are found more or less 
abundantly in all of the salt marshes bordering the rivers and creeks that 
go to make up the extensive inland waterway of Liberty county. A nest 
found May 9 contained eleven eggs. On July 19 I noted a nest containing 
seven eggs. These nests were composed of the blades and stems of the 
marsh grass and were placed in the marsh just above high water mark. 


i ; j 


aie Ericusen, Birds of Liberty County, Ga. 385 


These birds evidently have not learned of the danger from unusually 
high spring tides, as when these occur, many of their nests which are 
placed out of reach of normal tides, are destroyed. 

7. Catoptrophoruss. semipalmatus. Wititer.— The Willet breeds 
in much the same situations as the Wilson’s Plover, except that perhaps 
the former shows a more decided preference for the high grassy stretches 
well back from the beach. A few grass stems are laid in a depression 
made by the birds, usually at the base of a bunch of grass or weeds. Often- 
times no material is used, the eggs being deposited in a bare hole scooped 
out by the birds. 

Two nests were located by me on July 19 among high grass well back 
from the beach on St. Catherine’s island. Both held four eggs. Incu- 
bation was evidently advanced at this late date. 

Willets show much concern when their breeding grounds are invaded, 
flying overhead and emitting shrill cries until the intruder has withdrawn. 

8. Ochthodromus wilsonius. Wutson’s Piover.— The Wilson’s 
Plover is a characteristic bird of the beaches and mud flats and is abundant 
on St. Catherine’s island. The birds appear to prefer as nesting sites, 
isolated beaches bordering on sounds and inlets where there are numerous 
tussocks of grass and an abundance of small shells among which they 
lay their eggs. Three eggs are laid in a hole scooped out in the sand, usu- 
ally among short beach grass and on slight elevations formed by drifting 
sand. Although the birds breed abundantly on the island, my visit there 
was made on July 19 near the end of the breeding season, and I located 
but two sets of eggs. ‘ 

9. Chemepelia passerina terrestris. GrounD Dovr.— The 
Ground Dove is locally distributed in the county, and but two nests came 
under my observation. On May 1 I located a nest containing two fresh 
eggs, and on May 13 a second nest was found which also contained two 
eggs. The former was situated three feet up in a scrub oak, while the nest 
found May 13 was nine feet from the ground on a horizontal limb of a 
large pine and some distance from the trunk of the tree. Both nests were 
composed merely of a few twigs and dead pine needles, almost falling apart 
at the touch. 

The Ground Dove shows a decided preference for scrubby pastures, 
and woodland where there is much undergrowth, and, like the Bob-white, 
does not wander far from the locality in which it was hatched. Many 
Ground Doves nest on the ground, and use even less material in such cases 
than when placed in trees or bushes. 

I have been informed that eggs of this bird have been collected outside 
but near Liberty county in every month from March to October inclusive, 
a remarkably long nesting period. 

10. Halizetus leucocephalus leucocephalus. Bantp Eacur.— On 
January 9 I flushed a Bald Eagle from a nest on St. Catherine’s island, 
but was unable to ascertain its contents. It was built in a large short leaf 
pine, approximately eighty-five feet from the ground, and was of massive 


386 Ericusen, Birds of Liberty County, Ga. [sae 


* proportions, evidently having served as a home for the birds for a number 
of years. I was told that several pairs of these birds bred on the island, 
but I was unable to pay a visit to their nests. 

11. Pandion haliaetus carolinensis. Osprey.— Fish Hawks are 
numerous on St. Catherine’s island and I am told that at least ten pairs 
regularly nest on the island. A nest on the south end was occupied at 
the time of my visit on May 4. The birds return to the same nest year 
after year, adding material each season, until the structure becomes of 
large size. 

12. Coccyzus americanus americanus. YELLOW-BILLED Cuckoo. 
— Locally known as the ‘ Rain Crow,’ this bird is moderately common 
in the county. On May 17, near old Midway church, I found a nest seven 
feet from the ground on a horizontal limb of a live oak, well out from the 
trunk of the tree. The nest was the usual frail platform of twigs character- 
istic of this species and contained three young. 

In its choice of nesting sites, the Yellow-billed Cuckoo shows no prefer- 
ence for any species of tree or character of woodland, but as a rule, although 
not invariably, it selects a horizontal limb. 

13. Melanerpes erythrocephalus. Rrp-HEADED WoopPECKER.— 
Although not as abundant as the Flicker, the Red-headed Woodpecker 
nests in much the same situations as the former species, but as a rule, 
excavates its hole at a greater height than the Flicker. A nest noted 
May 28 at a height of twenty-eight feet contained five eggs. A subsequent 
visit to the nest disclosed the fact that the tree had been felled by the wind, | 
breaking the eggs and killing the sitting bird. 

14. Colaptes auratus auratus. FrLicker— Liberty county con- 
tains large areas of cut over lands with many stumps and dead trees, 
a condition favorable to the increase of the Flicker. The birds are as a 
result very abundant, nesting in close proximity to houses and as often | 
in the woods far from dwellings. Although several birds were noted enter- 
ing and leaving their nesting holes, I examined but one of the latter. This 
was ten feet from the ground in a telegraph pole opposite the depot at 
Allenhurst, and contained six fresh eggs on May 6. 7 | 

15. Antrostomus carolinensis. CHucK-witt’s W1ipow.— This in- 
teresting bird is abundant in the county, particularly on St. Catherine’s 
island and adjoining hammocks. It inhabits thick dry woods where the 
sun seldom penetrates the heavy foliage during the summer months. At 
least a month elapses after arrival of the birds before the eggs are laid, 
and from observations made by me in Liberty and nearby counties, cover- 
ing a period of six years, I am convinced that but a single brood is raised. 
Their two eggs are laid on the ground, usually on or among dry leaves, 
and are, contrary to popular belief, unusually conspicuous in their setting. 

The Chuck-will’s Widow flushes when the intruder is yet some distance 
away, and rises with a guttural squawk, to my ears unlike any other 
sound in nature. It is eminently crepuscular in habits, but when flushed | 
during the daytime flies with ease and rapidity through the maze of trees 
until lost to view. 


‘ 
| 


ai Ericusen, Birds of Liberty County, Ga. 387 


To test the truth of the report that these birds remove their eggs a 
short distance when touched, I purposely handled every one of the four 
sets found, being careful to mark the exact spot where they lay, but on 
returning to the eggs, I found every one in the spot where I had left it, 
none having been moved so much as an inch. I have made this test 
repeatedly in several other localities on the coast of Georgia, but always 
with the same result. 

Eggs were found on May 3, May 13 (two sets), and May 26, all in the 
immediate vicinity of Allenhurst. 

16. Tyrannus tyrannus. Kincpirp.— Not an uncommon species, 
but rather locally distributed. It shows a strong attachment to the 
vicinity of farmhouses, and often ventures to nest in the shade trees in 
the towns. On May 22, I noted a nest containing four eggs. It was 
placed fourteen feet from the ground in a China-berry tree growing in the 
yard at the rear of the hotel at Allenhurst. This nest was later destroyed 
by the wind, but the birds rebuilt in the same tree and not over five feet 
from the site of the first nest, and were successful in rearing a brood. 

17. Myiarchus crinitus. Cresrep FiycatcHer.— This species 
breeds in large numbers on St. Catherine’s island, but appears to be very 
locally distributed on the mainland, due no doubt to the scarcity of cedars 
there, as the birds show a strong preference for nesting in these trees, 
whenever they contain suitable hollows. A nest found May 4 on the 
island was in a natural cavity of a cedar, nine feet from the ground, and 
contamed five eggs which were unusually heavily marked. An entire 
cast-off snake skin twenty-two inches in length constituted over half of 
the nest material. 

18. Cyanocitta cristata cristata. Buure Jay—On June 12 at 
about dusk, near the town of Walthourville, I noted, at a height of about 
twenty-five feet, a bulky nest which I suspected was of this species. Wish- 
ing to be sure, I loitered around a few minutes, and was rewarded by seeing 
a Blue Jay settle on the nest. I was unable to examine the contents of 
the nest, and had no opportunity to revisit it. It was some distance out 
on a horizontal limb of a live oak. This species is not uncommon in the 
county, but I failed to discover any additional nests. 

19. Agelaius phosniceus phoniceus. Rep-wincep BLacKkBirD.— 
A colony of at least twenty-five pairs of these birds were noted nesting in 
some tall cat-tails growing in and around a fresh water pond located a 
short distance from Allenhurst. On May 8 nearly every nest contained 
four eggs, the birds evidently having begun nesting simultaneously. I 
revisited the pond on May 25, at which date many of the nests contained 
well fledged young, while additional nests with fresh eggs were noted. 
The nests were of the usual construction, being composed of the blades 
and stems of the different species of vegetation growing in the pond. The 
average heights of the nests were four feet, the lowest and highest being, 
respectively, 14 inches, and six feet six inches. No other Blackbird colo- 
nies of this size were discovered in the county, although scattered pairs of 
birds were noted nesting among the abandoned rice fields. 


388 EricuHsen, Birds of Liberty County, Ga. [ae 


20. Icterus spurius. OrcHARD OrIoLE.— Two nests of the Orchard 
Oriole were noted, both placed in shade trees bordering a roadside, an 
environment to which this species appears to be almost wholly restricted. 
The first nest, found May 31, contained five well fledged young. On 
June 4, I located another containing four fresh eggs, undoubtedly a second 
laying. Both nests were placed in the apex of small sweet gums, at heights 
of nine and thirteen feet respectively, and were composed of blades of 
different species of grass woven in when green, but which had faded very 
much. Thistle-down constituted the linings, with the exception of a few 
fine hair-like rootlets. 

21. Megaquiscalus major major. Boat-Tainep GRACKLE.— This 
is a characteristic bird of the salt marshes, breeding in large colonies. On 
May 9 I examined upwards of seventy-five of their nests in the tall marsh 
bordering the numerous hammocks and islands north of St. Catherine’s 
island. Many nests contained young, but the majority held eggs. Several 
of the sets were incomplete, but in no case were more than three eggs or 
young noted in any nest, which number appears to be the full complement. 
The nests were composed of the blades and stalks of the marsh grass. Mud 
is largely used in their construction also, which upon hardening renders 
the nests almost indestructible by the elements, some retaining their 
original shape and solidity after bemg exposed for two or three years. 

22. Pipilo erythrophthalmus alleni. WuTs-ryep TowHEE.— 
Although not uncommon in the county, the White-eyed Towhees are 
very secretive in their nesting habits, often building their nests on or near 
the ground, and when so placed are very difficult to locate. On May 20 
I discovered a pair of these birds building in some dense undergrowth 
bordering the tram road about a mile distant from Allenhurst. I with- 
drew a short distance to watch them at their work, in order to learn more 
of their nesting habits, but although I remained quiet and almost con- 
cealed for nearly half an hour, neither one of the birds returned to the 
nest while I remained in the neighborhood. On June 1 this nest contained 
three eggs. Continuing to search in the vicinity, I succeeded in finding 
another, containing three pipped eggs. Both nests were placed twelve 
inches above the ground in gall-berry bushes, and were composed almost 
entirely of weed stalks and long dry grass blades, the latter material pre- 
dominating, and lined with rootlets and grass stems. 

23. Cardinalis cardinalis cardinalis. Carpinau.— This fine bird 
is abundantly distributed over the county, nesting in equal abundance 
in all of the many and varied environments which the county has to offer. 
As attesting the wide diversity in character of woodland frequented by 
this species, particularly during the nesting season, I will state that I 
noted their nests far in the interior of almost impenetrable swamps; in 
willows growing in water in rice fields, and in high open woods of mixed 
coniferous and deciduous growth, as well as in bushy pastures and among 
trees and undergrowth bordering roadsides. April 26 is the earliest date 
on; which I: noted fresh eggs.;, Well fledged young were noted in the nest 


ill EricusEen, Birds of Liberty County, Ga. 389 


July 4. Between and including the two dates mentioned, I found eight 
nests, six containing three eggs each, and two with young. Sets of more 
than three eggs are extremely rare, for during these and previous obser- 
vations elsewhere in Georgia, covering a period of several years, I have 
never noted a nest containing a larger number than this, and very often 
but two eggs are laid. The heights at which these nests were placed 
varied from three to ten feet, averaging about seven feet. They were 
composed of weed stalks, moss, dead leaves and trash, lined with grass 
stems, rootlets and pine straw, and were very loosely constructed, this 
being a characteristic of the nest of this species. 

24. Passerina ciris. Painrep Buntina.— This highly colored bird 
nests abundantly in the county, frequenting scrub oak woodland, bushy 
pastures and undergrowth bordering roadsides. The birds are absent 
entirely from heavily timbered tracts and the interior of swamps, occasion- 
ally however, nesting among the low undergrowth bordering the latter. 
My earliest and latest dates when fresh eggs were found are May 14 and 
July 19 respectively. Well fledged young were noted in the nest July 25. 
Between, and including the two dates first mentioned, I located twelve 
nests of this species which contained eggs, besides several nests in which 
were young of various stages of growth. Of the twelve nests noted nine 
held three eggs each, and the remaining contained four each. The major- 
ity of the nests were in small gums and scarlet oaks, with an occasional 
nest In vines and sumach, and were placed at heights ranging from two 
feet six inches to eleven feet, averaging about six feet. All were composed 
of leaves and grasses, lined with rootlets and, in several instances, with 
horsehair. Practically no variation in materials used was noted. This 
species often nests in festoons of the Spanish moss, and the nests when so 
placed are difficult to discover. 

25. Piranga rubra rubra. Summer Tanacer.— This species breeds 
abundantly, especially in localities where there are large areas of second 
growth scrub oak woodland. Although the birds arrive early in April, 
they do not commence nest building until the latter part of that month, 
and it is often well into May before full complements of eggs are found. 
I noted three nests of this species, two of which were placed on the extrem- 
ity of horizontal limbs of scarlet oaks. These two nests were so close to 
the ground that by bending the limbs down a few inches, the contents 
could be easily examined. In striking contrast to the low heights at which 
these two nests were placed, was one I found on May 13. It was built 
almost at the extreme end of a horizontal limb of a huge black gum at a 
height of approximately fifty-five feet, and was inaccessible. The two nests 
whose contents I was able to examine each contained four eggs. Dates 
were May 8 and 20. The Summer Red-bird constructs a very shallow and 
flimsy nest, almost always composed wholly of the bleached stems of 
the wild pepper plant, which abounds in the south Atlantic states, and in 
nearly every instance the eggs are visible from the ground through the 
nest. The three nests noted by me were located in a tract of mixed 
woods near Allenhurst. 


390 Ericusen, Birds of Liberty County, Ga. ae 


‘ 26. Progne subis subis. Purete Marrin.— Four colonies were 
noted in the county, two at Walthourville, one at Hinesville and one 
near Sunbury, in addition to other colonies which were reported to me. 
About twelve pairs of birds comprised each colony. Boxes and gourds 
put up for the purpose were used for nesting. 

27. Lanius ludovicianus ludovicianus. LoGGrrRHEAD SHRIKE.— 
The single nest of this species that I found was placed five feet above the 
ground in thorny bushes bordering a roadside near McIntosh; it was com- 
posed of thorny sticks and twigs, weed stalks and trash, lined with rootlets, 
and contained four eggs on April 6. This species is very locally distributed 
in the county, a fact however not at all to be regretted. 

28. Vireosylva olivacea. RrEp-EYepD Vrreo..— On May 21, in a 
patch of deciduous woods between Walthourville and Allenhurst, I found 
a nest of this species containing three heavily incubated eggs. It was 
placed twelve feet from the ground near the end of a horizontal limb of a 
sweet gum, and directly over a much frequented road. On June 2, in the 
same piece of woods, I noted a second nest containing three eggs. This 
was built in a dogwood tree at a height of only five feet. This species 
constructs a nest of material similar to that used by the White-eyed Vireo, 
and inhabits much the same character of woodland. Its nest however is, 
as a rule, much less deeply cupped, and the lining differs in being composed 
of pine needles and rootlets. 

A peculiarity of this species which I have noted both in Liberty county 
and elsewhere is a habit the birds have of destroying partially completed 
nests built by them. I once watched a pair remove piece by piece the 
material from a nearly completed nest, and weave it into another which 
they had begun a few yards distant. This is a habit of the Red-eyed Vireo 
which I have not seen mentioned in ornithological literature. 

29. Vireo griseus griseus. WHiITE-EYED VirEo.— Abundantly dis- 
tributed. The White-eyed Vireo inhabits moderately timbered districts and 
bushes. It places its nest in the fork near the end of a horizontal branch. 
Four nests were noted, each containing four eggs. Two were in small 
sweet gums, four feet from the ground; one in a myrtle bush at a height of 
ten inches, and one three feet up on a low limb of a large silver leaf maple. 
They were composed largely of dead cane leaves, interwoven with grape- 
vine bark, and had numerous small pieces of rotten wood secured to the 
exterior with spider web. Much of the latter material, interwoven with 
fine rootlets, was attached to the rim of the nests, being used to secure 
them to the hmb. The linings were composed of fine rootlets and grasses. 
All of these nests were found on the margin of a small swamp near Allen- 
hurst. Dates: April 22, two nests, April 29 and May 7. 

30. Compsothlypis americana americana. ParutA WARBLER.— 
But a single nest of this species came under my observation, although I 
searched for them many times in the festoons of Spanish moss which hang 
in profusion from the ancient live oaks at old Midway cemetery and other 
points near the coast. The nest was placed only six feet from the ground 


Ot] Ericusen, Birds of Liberty County, Ga. 391 


in a festoon of moss, and was a rather shabby affair composed of the fibres 
of the moss, and grass stems, lined sparingly with fine dry grasses and root- 
lets, and held four fresh eggs on May 2. This species, as well as the Yellow-- 
throated Warbler, is dependent altogether on the Spanish moss for nesting 
sites. I might add that although I searched many times for the nest of 
the Yellow-throated Warbler in these oaks at Midway, as well as at other 
places where moss abounds, I was unable to locate a single one. 

31. Dendroica discolor. Pratrrze WAarBLER.— Although the Prairie 
Warbler breeds commonly in the scrub oak woodland and bushy pastures 
in the interior of the county, I located but a single nest. It was placed 
seven feet from the ground in a cedar in an open pasture, two miles south 
of Hinesville. It was an unusually handsome specimen of bird architecture, 
deeply cupped, composed of fine grass stems and plant down, lined with 
hair, and contained three fresh eggs on May 12, I returned to the nest 
two days later at which time it held four eggs. 

32. Wilsonia citrina. Hooprp Warsier.— The Hooded is another 
species of Wood Warbler whose nesting in the county is recorded in my 
note book but once. This nest was located on May 4, and contained four 
eggs well advanced in incubation. It was placed four feet from the ground 
in canes growing in a dense swamp nine miles from Allenhurst, and within 
one hundred feet of a tram road over which heavy log trains passed several 
times daily. The nest was a dainty little home, woven of cane leaves, 
weed stalks and bark strips, and was lined with fine rootlets, and secured 
to the cane stalks with caterpillar silk. 

33. Icteria virens virens. YELLOW-BREASTED CuHat.— The nesting 
of this secretive bird in the county has fallen under my observation but 
once, and then only after a hard half hour search in a dense thicket of 
blackberry briars three miles from Allenhurst, near a road between that 
town and Hinesville. The nest was a bulky affair, placed three feet up 
in the briars, and was composed of weed stalks, cane leaves, and several 
strands of grapevine bark, lined with fine grasses. This nest was found 
on May 16, and contained four eggs which must have been in an advanced 
stage of incubation, for on revisiting the nest nine days later it held well- 
feathered young. The Yellow-breasted Chat is common in the county, 
and during the months of May and June, I have often observed their amus- 
ing aerial acrobatic stunts. After the latter month, the birds become silent, 
and are extremely shy and rarely observed. 

34. Mimus polyglottos polyglottos. Mocxinesrrp.— The Mock- 
ingbird breeds abundantly in orchards and shade trees in and around the 
towns and settlements throughout the county. Between April 9 and July 
16 I counted no less than twenty-four nests of this bird with eggs or young 
in the towns of Allenhurst, Hinesville and Walthourville, besides several 
nests in course of construction which were not revisited. One nest was 
placed among a clump of vines screening the front porch of a residence at 
Hinesville, and another was built in a small shrub in the front yard of a 
house in the same town. The remaining nests were distributed among 


392 EricusEen, Birds of Liberty County, Ga. xe 


the shade trees, orchards, and isolated bushes in the vicinity. The nests 
were composed of twigs, grapevine bark, plant fibre and trash, lined with 
rootlets. Of the nests noted, sixteen held four eggs each, two held three 
eggs each, and two contained five eggs each, all in various stages of incu- 
bation, while four nests contained four young each. The heights ranged 
from three to nineteen feet, averaging about five feet. My earliest and 
latest dates when full complements of eggs were noted, are, respectively, 
April 9, set of four, and July 16, set of three. Well feathered young were 
observed in the latter nest on August 6. 

35. Toxostoma rufum. Brown TurasHer.— Although fully as 
abundant in the county as the Mockingbird, the Brown Thrasher is more 
retiring in habits, showing a preference for secluded localities, and in 
Liberty County at least, rarely ventures to nest in the immediate vicinity 
of dwellings. The birds choose as their home environment, brush heaps, 
thorn thickets and grapevine tangles. They begin nest building slightly 
earlier than the Mockingbird, as I noted young about one week old on 
April 18. Eight nests were noted, in widely separated localities. Seven 
contained four eggs each, and one held three young about one week old, 
the latter nest being the one noted on April 18, and is my earliest breeding 
record for the county. My latest date is June 20, when a nest containing 
four eggs was found. In construction, and materials used, these nests 
were very similar to those of the Mockingbird, being, however, slightly 
bulkier and containing more twigs than, the nest of the latter species. 
Heights varied from two to seven feet, averaging four feet. 

36. Thryothorus ludovicianus ludovicianus. CaroLina WREN.— 
This species is present everywhere in the county, nesting in great abun- 
dance. They are, however, very secretive in nesting habits, and I-am 
able to record the finding of but three nests. These were built in a variety 
of situations, the first one being noted on April 15. It was placed four 
feet from the ground in a natural cavity of an oak stub, and contained five 
fresh eggs. This nest was constructed entirely of dead pine needles with 
the exception of the lining, which consisted of a few dried strands of Spanish 
moss. Another nest, noted May 12, was placed in a depression between 
two converging roots at the base of a large cypress growing in the heart 
of a dense swamp. ‘This nest also contained five eggs. The third nest was 
built in a burnt out ‘“ boxing” of a live pine in a heavily timbered district 
on St. Catherine’s island, and contained an incomplete set of three eggs 
on June 7, evidently a second laying. The two latter nests were bulky 
affairs, composed of moss, hay, grasses and leaves, lined with hair and 
feathers. 

The Carolina Wren is an early breeder in Liberty County. Five seems 
to constitute the usual complement of eggs of the first laying, the second 
consisting usually of four. 

37. Telmatodytes palustris griseus. WorrTHincTon’s MarsH 
WreN.— The Marsh Wren is ever associated in my mind with wide 
stretches of marsh and early morning excursions on numerous rivers and 


Ve i Ne ] Panapurn, Birds of Pinellas County, Fla. 393 


creeks that thread their way alternately between small heavily wooded 
hammocks and beautiful islands all covered with undergrowth almost 
tropical in aspect, and bordered by luxuriant growths of tall marsh grass 
swaying in the gentle summer breeze. In such an environment the wiry 
trill of the Marsh Wren is the first bird voice to be heard at the morning 
awakening. This species breeds numerously in the county, being confined 
exclusively to salt water marshes. On May 9, among the marshes border- 
ing the islands and hammocks north of St. Catherine’s island, I examined 
many nests containing from one to five eggs. The latter number consti- 
tutes the full complement. The nests were globular in shape, with the 
entrance on the side, and were composed of the blades and stems of the 
marsh grass. They were placed in the tall grass well out of reach of high 
tides. This bird constructs many nests which apparently are never occu- 
pied, although I am not aware that anyone has carried on observations in 
one of their colonies sufficiently continuous to prove conclusively that these 
nests are not used in some way. 


A THREE MONTHS’ LIST OF THE BIRDS OF PINELLAS 
COUNTY, FLORIDA. 


BY MAJOR CLIFFORD H. PANGBURN, A.R.C. 


TuE observations upon which the following list is based were 
made during a period extending from January 22 to April 29, 1918. 
The region covered included the greater part of Pinellas County, 
Florida, although most of the time was spent in the southern part 
of the county around the city of St. Petersburg, and along the keys 
which separate the Gulf of Mexico from the mainland. 

Pinellas County is in the form of a peninsula about seven or eight 
miles wide at the widest point, and tapering to a blunt end at the 
southern end. Along the east side is Tampa Bay, on which is 
located St. Petersburg, a city of about 15,000, which has nearly 
double that population in the winter. Tampa is about fifty miles 
distant, up and across the bay. 

On the west side of the county lies Boca Ceiga Bay, from which 
there are a few passes opening into the Gulf of Mexico between the 
keys. These are for the most part very narrow. The keys them- 


394 PancBuRN, Birds of Pinellas County, Fla. ns 


selves are with a few exceptions only a few hundred yards in width. 
In some places there are thick groves of good sized palmettos but 
for the most part the vegetation is thin and scarce. There are a 
good many very shallow bayous on the inner side of the keys. 

At the center of the Pinellas Peninsula and about two miles from 
its southern point is Salt Lake. As a matter of fact this lake is 
fresh in spite of its name. It has an area of perhaps a square mile. 
At three corners there are good sized marshes of tall grass and cat- 
tails, and at many places the banks are wet and soggy turf. It is 
an ideal place for many species of water birds, and hundreds of 
them are there. Unfortunately there seems to be absolutely no at- 
tempt made to enforce game laws either State or Federal. I visited 
Salt Lake many times and on every occasion discovered one or more 
persons shooting at the wildfowl there. 

The mainland of the county consists almost entirely of pine 
barrens considerably thinned out for a long distance from the city 
by real estate developments. Indeed I often found that I could 
stroll through the heart of some good ornithological hunting ground 
on the cement sidewalks of some optimistic real estate speculator. 

All around the coast line of the county are numerous bayous, 
which are usually very shallow and make excellent feeding places 
for wading birds. 

This list makes no pretense of being more than an outline upon 
which to start a complete record of the bird life of this interesting 
region. In the first place it covers only a little over three months, 
and in addition I was in Florida convalescing from an operation 
following service in France. During the first part of my stay I 
was much limited in getting about, and at no time could I take very 
long walks or cover as much of the country as I should have liked. 

The wealth of bird life, especially of various sorts of water birds, 
and the ease with which many of them can be observed makes 
Pinellas County a place of never ending interest to the ornithologist. 
The perfect climate of the winter heightens the charm. 


1. Colymbus auritus. Hornep Grese.— Rather common during 
February, but showing great variation as to abundance. On some days 
forty to sixty could be seen near the docks, while on other days none could 
be found. Seen only on Tampa and Boca Ceiga bays, never on the Gulf. 
Some specimens seen on February 18 were almost in full plumage. 


‘a 


isis | PANGBURN, Birds of Pinellas County, Fla. 395 


2. Podilymbus podiceps. Piep-Bintep Grese.— Abundant at all 
times on Salt Lake, which as mentioned above is actually fresh. These 
Grebes were in company with Coots, but not nearly so numerous. Present 
but less abundant as late as April 20. 

3. Gavia immer. Loon.— Present in small numbers on the bays. 
On February 13 I watched two for some time within fifty feet of a dock 
from which a number of people were fishing. 

4. Gavia stellata. Rep-rHroatep Loon.— Two seen on January 
30. is my only record of this species. 

5. Larus argentatus. Hrrrina Guiu.— Herring Gulls were fairly 
common at all times although outnumbered by the two following species. 
Nearly all of the birds seen were immature. 

6. Larus delawarensis. Rinc-pittep Guiu.— These gulls became 
very common from February 11 until late April, although prior to that time 
I did not see any. This may have been because I did not get to Boca Ceiga 
bay, where they were most abundant until that date. Fairly common 
along the Gulf beaches. 

7. Larus atricilla. LauagHina Guiu.— Hundreds of Laughing Gulls 
were always present, and every sort of transitional stage of plumage could 
be observed. They are easily attracted by throwing minnows into the 
water. The fishermen call them Crying Gulls, a name perhaps fully as 
appropriate as the official title. The Laughing Gull is a persistent tor- 

mentor of the Brown Pelican. While the latter is squeezing the water 

from its pouch after catching a fish the Gull will calmly perch on the 
Pelican’s head, and attempt to steal the fish when it is tossed prior to swal- 
lowing. The Pelicans appear to ignore totally the presence of the Gull 
and I have never seen one lose afish. After watching hundreds of unsucces- 
ful attempts by the Laughing Gulls to steal a meal in this way I came to 
the conclusion that they must be an extremely optimistic species. 

8. Larus franklini. FrRanKuin’s Guti.— I saw one Franklin’s 
Gull on February 26. It was in company with several other species at the 
mouth of a sewer where I watched it for half an hour or more with an eight 
diameter glass, often being within twenty-five feet. There could be no 
doubt of the identification. This is I believe a rare Gull in Florida. 

9. Larus philadelphia. Bonapartn’s Guti.— A few Bonaparte’s 
Gulls were observed on a half-dozen different dates ranging from January 
28 to April 29. They were always in company with Laughing Gulls. 
Apparently a regular but scarce winter visitor on this portion of the West 
Coast. 

10. Sterna caspia. Caspian TrerN.— This magnificent Tern was 
about as common as the equally handsome species which follows, both 
being abundant. They were seen over both bays, the Gulf and the fresh 
water lake. They are also fond of sitting for hours on sand bars with 
other water birds. At such times they are shy and are the first to take 
flight. They have a considerable variety of calls and whistles. 

11. Sterna maxima. Royat Trern.— What has been said about 


396 Pancsurn, Birds of Pinellas County, Fla. kas 


the foregoing species applies to this one. The two are usually found in 
company, but with a little practice it is easy to distinguish them from 
one another. Their beautiful flight and striking appearance make them 
most attractive. 

12. Sterna sandvicensis acuflavida. Canov’s Tern.— I saw a half 
dozen Cabot’s Terns on February 14, March 25 and March 26. They 
were all on the Gulf side at Pass-a-Grille Key. They are probably more 
abundant than my records would indicate, but do not frequent the land- 
locked bays to so great an extent as do other Terns. 

13. Sterna hirundo. Common Trrn.— A few were seen during the 
last week of January and the first ten days of February. After that they 
seemed to disappear. Some of the birds were probably Forster’s Terns 
but in winter plumage this is a distinction that is difficult to make. 

14. Sterna antillarum. Least Tern.— One was seen on February 
11, and I saw two more on April 26. These are my only records. 

15. Rynchops nigra. Buack SximmMer.— Skimmers were among 
the most abundant of the water birds about St. Petersburg, but varied 
greatly in their abundance from day to day. Flocks of from a hundred 
to a.thousand could be seen resting on sand bars. They were found for 
the most part on the bays. They are locally known as Scissorbills and 
Shearwaters. 

16. Phalacrocorax auritus floridanus. FLorma CormMorant.— 
Whether all of the Cormorants observed were of this subspecies I cannot 
say, although theoretically I suppose that they were. In any case those 
which were breeding on Bird Key must have been floridanus. The Cor- 
morants are known locally and to the tourists as “nigger ducks.” They 
are probably the most abundant water bird of Pinellas county, although 
not as conspicuous as the Brown Pelican. On February 11 at Pass-a- 
Grille I saw a flock of Florida Cormorants which numbered easily twelve 
thousand. The flock was apparently following some vast school of fish, 
and swung about in the air and water for two hours or more before passing 
out of sight. This was in the Gulf of Mexico. At one time the flock came 
so near the beach that I could hear the roar of the wings. About half of 
the birds were in the water and half in the air, and they kept constantly 
changing, so that there was a tremendous amount of activity. A few Peli- 
cans, Mergansers and Gulls were mingled in the flock. On a visit to Bird 
Key, April 3, I found the Cormorants nesting in large numbers. The 
nests were in the most inaccessible portions of the mangroves, and were 
further protected by the violent disgorging of half digested fish by their 
tenants. 

17. Pelecanus erythrorhynchos. Wuire Pr.ican.—I saw only 
two White Pelicans. One was flying over Salt Lake on February 7 and 
the other was at Bird Key on February 18. The fishermen assure-me that 
a few are seen every winter on Boca Ceiga bay. 

18. Pelecanus occidentalis. Brown PrLican.— Brown Pelicans 
are the chief show bird of St. Petersburg. They are the pets of the tour- 


Verte a Panapurn, Birds of Pinellas County, Fla. 397 


ists, who take endless delight in their extraordinary prowess as living fish 
nets. During the past winter fishermen have been attempting to get 
permission to kill the Pelicans on the ground that they destroy valuable 
fish. The absurdity of this assertion is apparent to anyone who has 
watched the birds. Hundreds of Brown Pelicans nest on Bird Key, the 
nests being placed at from six to twenty-five feet in the mangroves. I 
visited the key on April 3 at which time the young were just hatching. 

19. Fregata aquila. Man-o’-war-sirp.— I first saw a Man-o’-war- 
bird on the Gulf side on April 4. From April 16 to 29, when I left, I saw 
from one to four of them every day. The extraordinary grace with which 
they sail in the heaviest wind or the most complete calm makes them con- 
spicuous in spite of their comparatively small numbers. ‘ 

20.. Mergus serrator. Rerp-BREASTED Mrrcanser.— Flocks of two 
or three to sixteen or eighteen were frequently observed. They were 
very tame, frequently coming directly under the docks. Full plumaged 
males were seldom seen. 

21. Mergus americanus. Mrrcanser.— Three adult males were 
seen, the last on March 25. 

22. Anas platyrhynchos. Ma.iarp.— Only one Mallard was seen, 
February 11. 

23. Anas fulvigula fulvigula.— I saw a flock of about a dozen Florida 
Ducks in the Manatee river across the mouth of Tampa bay from the 
southern tip of Pinellas county, but I have no doubt that they occur on 
the Pinellas side of the bay as well. The birds were seen from a steamer 
on January 30. 

24. Chaulelasmus streperus. Gapwatu.—I got quite close to a 
flock of eight Gadwalls at Salt Lake on March 4th. Although this was 
the only time that I saw them it is probable that they had been there for 
some time among the hundreds of Scaups. 

25. Querquedula discors. Biur-wincep Trau.—I did not see 
any Teal but Howard Hall, of Indianapolis, Ind., observed some Blue- 
winged Teal at Clearwater in January. 

26. Marila valisineria. Canvas-Bpack.— Fairly abundant at Salt 
Lake until the middle of March. First seen February 7. The extremely 
cold winter in the North may have been responsible for their appear- 
ance so far South. 

27. Marila marila. Scaup Duck.— Positively identified only once, 
March 4. 

28. Marila affinis. Lesser Scaup Duck.— Extremely abundant on 
both salt and fresh water. On Salt Lake they are constantly shot at by 
local hunters who totally disregard all game laws, but they remain there 
by hundreds if not thousands. Abundant as late as April 20. 

29. Marila collaris. Rinc-NEcKED DucKk.— One seen on Boca Ceiga 
bay on February 14. 

30. Erismatura jamaicensis. Ruppy Ducx.—A good sized flock 


ie 


398 PaNGBURN, birds of Pinellas County, Fla. 
.of Ruddy Ducks was on Salt Lake on February 7 and 8 but I did not see 
them at any other time. 

31. Guara alba. Wuitr Isis.— The White Ibis was inconspicuous 
until April, being seen only on Bird Key, where I found two on February 
18. Throughout April they were very abundant, often being seen wheeling 
about over the city. They frequently fly in wedge shaped flocks. I have 
seen as many as five hundred circling about together. They are probably 
the largest breeder at Bird Key. 

32. Mycteria americana. Woop Isis.—I saw only one Wood Ibis. 
It was at Salt Lake on April 20. It sailed about overhead for some time. 

33. Ardea herodias herodias. Great BLur Hrron.— So far as I 
could tell without collecting any specimens Great Blue Herons and Ward’s 
Herons seemed to be about equally abundant. Large numbers of both 
were present. During the last week of March birds were building nests on 
Bird Key. These were, I suppose, A. h. wardi. 

34. Herodias egretta. Earer.— It was a pleasant surprise to find 
the Egret quite well established. I have seen as many as fifty together. 
Nesting preparations were started at Bird Key at the time of my last visit 
April 4. 

35. Egretta candidissima candidissima. Snowy Ecretr.— Not 
nearly as abundant as the preceding species during the latter part of my 
stay but commoner during February. I did not see any Snowy Egrets 
at Bird Key, although told that they nest there. A number in full breeding 
plumage were noted. 

36. Hydranassa tricolor ruficollis. Lours1ana Hreron.— Common 
at every pool and bayou and along the shore. Usually quite tame. Breed 
on Bird Key. 

37. Florida cerulea. Lirrte BLur Hrron.— Very abundant, but 
seen mostly on the mud flats on the bay side of the Gulf keys. A few in the 
white plumage seen. Breed on Bird Key. 

38. Nyctanassa violacea. YELLOW-CROWNED NicHtT HprRon.— 
Only one seen. 

39. Rallus elegans. Kina Ratn.—One apparently spent several 
weeks in a brackish bog not a hundred feet in diameter, and very near one 
of the city streets. It could be seen frequently and heard oftener. This 
species also occurred at Salt Lake. 

40. Gallinula galeata. FLormpA GaLLINULE.— The marshes about 
Salt Lake were full of Florida Gallinules, and they could be seen there at 
any time. They were probably breeding. 

41. Fulica americana. Coort.— Coots were very abundant on Salt 
Lake. Flocks of three or four hundred were common, and parts of the 
marshes were almost crowded with them. Some were there at least as 
late as April 20. 

42. Gallinago delicata. Wutson’s Snipz.— Two Wilson’s Snipe 
were present in the same bog mentioned above as the home of the King 
Rail from January 26 to March 6. These were the only ones I saw. 


coten | Pancpurn, Birds of Pinellas County, Fla. 399 


43. Macrorhamphus griseus scolopaceus. Lona-BintED Dow- 
1rcHER.— I suppose that the Dowitchers observed were of this subspecies. 
They were common on the mud flats and beaches, although none were seen 
after April 1. They were usually in flocks of about a dozen. 

44. Pisobia minutilla. Last Sanppiper.— Extremely common, 
occurring with the Semipalmated and Western Sandpipers in flocks of 
hundreds on beaches and mud flats. 

45. Pelidna alpina sakhalina. Rep-packrep SanppreprR.— Did not 
appear to be common but a few could usually be found in any large group 
of shore birds. In winter plumage they are so inconspicuous that they 
were doubtless passed by at times. 

46. Ereunetes pusillus. SrmipALMATED SANDPIPER.— Common on 
all the beaches and flats. 

47. Ereunetes mauri. WersTERN SanppiperR.— Apparently not 
very common, but this is perhaps due to the close resemblance to the 
preceding species. 

48. Totanus melanoleucus. GREATER YELLOW-LEGS.— Two were 
seen on February 15. 

49. Catoptrophorus semipalmatus inornatus. WesTeRN WILLET. 
— While I did not collect any Willets I assumed those seen to be of this 
subspecies, as the Gulf Coast of Florida is a part of their regular winter 
range. Willets were abundant during all of my stay and were most 
commonly seen in groups of four to six. On February 16 I saw a flock of at 
least a thousand on a sand bar in Boca Ceiga bay. I often heard them 
crying as they flew about at night, especially when there was a good moon. 

50. Actitis macularia. Sporrep Sanppiper.— This species was 
not as abundant as would be expected. I saw it only three or four times. 

51. Squatarola squatarola. Briack-BeLLisp PLover.— Quite com- 
mon up to April 16. Seen mostly in small flocks on the Gulf beaches. 

52. Oxyechus vociferus. KitipEer.— While it is true that the 
Killdeer is not the most abundant shore bird of Pinellas County it is 
easily the most conspicuous. Small numbers are present everywhere 
along the beaches and at many places inland. Like the Willet they are 
very active at night. Was very rare after the first of April. 

53. Sgialitis semipalmata. SremipatmMaTeD PLOvER.— This species 
was regularly present in fair sized flocks on all of the beaches. It was 
usually in company with other Plover and the smaller Sandpipers. 

54. Aigialitis meloda. Preinc Piover.— Not so abundant as the 
preceding and seen only on the Gulf beaches of the outer keys, where they 
could always be found in small flocks. 

55. ASgialitis nivosa. Snowy Piover.— The Snowy Plover is, I 
believe, a very rare bird in Florida. I saw only one which was on a sand 
bar south of Pass-a-Grille Key on March 25. I was able to examine it for 
a long time with an eight diameter binocular at a distance of less than 
fifty feet. There could be no question of the identification. It was in 
company with a small flock of Piping Plover. 


400 PanaBurn, Birds of Pinellas County, Fla. his 


56. Ochthodromus wilsonius. Witson’s PLover.— A common 
species seen with almost every flock of shore birds. Last seen on March 25. 

57. Arenaria interpes morinella. Ruppy TuRNSTONE.— One of 
the most abundant of the shore birds, being found in about equal abundance 
along the surf and on the tidal flats. 

58. Colinus virginianus floridanus. FLorma Bos-wuitTr.— Bob- 
white did not appear to be very common, but were sometimes seen along 
the edges of the roads. I assume that they were of this subspecies. 

59. Zenaidura macroura carolinensis. Mourning Dove.—A 
common bird in the central part of the county, but not often seen near the 
water. 

60. Zenaida zenaida. ZrNatpA Dove.—I saw two Zenaida Doves 
on Pass-a-Grille Key on February 11. This is the only record I have of the 
species. 

61. Chemepelia passerina terrestris. Grounp Dove.— Ground 
Doves are common throughout Pinellas County both on the mainland and 
the keys. In St. Petersburg they are often seen about the door yards. 
They are locally called Sand Doves, perhaps because all the ground is sand. 

62. Cathartes aura septentrionalis. TurKEy VULTURE.— See 
following species. 

63. Catharista urubu. Buiack Vu_rure.— Both species of Vultures 
are of course extremely abundant. There is not a moment of the day 
when one to a hundred cannot be seen. The two species seem to be about 
equally common. 

64. Circus hudsonius. Marsa Hawx.—A Marsh Hawk could 
always be seen about Salt Lake and also along the keys, but there were 
probably not many individuals present. 

65. Accipiter velox. SuHarp-sHINNED Hawx.—I saw one Sharp- 
shinned Hawk in the Pine woods on February 20. 

66. Halizetus leucocephalus leucocephalus. Batp Eacir. — 
Quite common all around the coast line of the county. I knew of six 
nests. The first one which I found had two young which looked to be 
about half grown on February 13. 

67. Falco sparverius sparverius. Sparrow Hawk. — Sparrow 
Hawks were abundant everywhere on mainland and keys. 

68. Pandion haliaetus carolinensis. Osprey.— Frequently seen 
about the bays and over the Gulf. 


69. Aluco pratincola. Barn Owu.—I flushed a Barn Owl among. 


some thick pines north of the city on February 27. It lingered about the 
locality, where it probably spent the greater part of its time. 

70. Asio flammeus. Suort-EARED Own.— The only Short-eared 
Owl which I saw I flushed from among the grass tufts at the lower end of 
Pass-a-Grille Key on February 11. 

71. Otus asio floridanus. Frorma Screech Ow1.—I frequently 
heard Screech Owls and knew of one hollow tree in which one roosted. 
Because of the locality I assumed the Owls to be floridanus. 


eg | Panasurn, Birds of Pinellas County, Fla. 401 


72. Coccyzus americanus americanus. YELLOW-BILLED CUCKOO. 
— One Yellow-billed Cuckoo was seen on April 26 but it may have arrived 
considerably before that date as I had not previously been in a suitable 
region for this bird. 

73. Ceryle alcyon alcyon. Brirep KinerisHer.— Several King- 
fishers could be seen in the course of a day along the shore, but though regu- 
lar they were not abundant. 

“74. Dryobates pubescens pubescens. Sournern Downy Woop- 
PECKER.— While I encountered Downy Woodpeckers occasionally they 
did not appear to be common at any time. 

75. Dryobates borealis. Rrp-cockaDED WoopPECKER.— Evidence 
in the form of old nests led me to believe that all Woodpeckers have recently 
been more common in Pinellas county than I found them. The Red- 
cockaded Woodpecker could be seen regularly in a few localities but was 
entirely missing from places equally favorable. 

76. Melanerpes erythrocephalus. Rerp-HEADED WoopPECKER.— 
Evidently a scarce bird at least at the season covered. I saw only two, 
March 21 and April 26. 

77. Centurus carolinus. Rerp-BELLIED WoopPEcKER.— This species 
with the exception of the following was the most abundant and evenly 
distributed Woodpecker. They were quite frequent on the keys where 
they nest in the trunks of the larger palmettos. 

78. Colaptes auratus auratus. Fuicker.— The Flicker was com- 
mon throughout the county both in the city and the pine woods. I saw 
them only rarely on the keys. 

79. Antrostomus carolinensis. CHUCK-WILL’s-wipow.— Rather 
common from March 13 on. One or two could usually be heard singing at 
any place around the edge of the city in the evening. 

80. Chordeiles virginianus chapmani. FLorma NicHTHAWK.— 
Unless C. V. virginianus occurs on this part of the West Coast during migra- 
tion the Nighthawks I saw were of this subspecies. They did not appear 
until April 19 and were abundant after that date. 

81. Cheetura pelagica. CHimNny Swirr.— Every day from March 24 
to the end of my stay these birds were increasingly abundant. None seen 
before that date. 

82. Archilochus colubris. Rusy-rHroatep HuMMINGBIRD.— First 
seen on February 21 on Long Key. Only two others were seen in spite 
of the large quantities of flowering plants and trees. 

83. Tyrannus tyrannus. Kinapirp.— Kingbirds appeared first 
on April 28, the day before my departure. 

84. Myiarchus crinitus. Crestep FiycatcHer.— Common in the 
pine woods and along the city streets after April 20. 

85. Sayornis phoebe. PHorse.—I saw this species throughout my 
stay but not in large numbers. 

86. Cyanocitta cristata florincola. FLorma Biun Jay.— The 
Blue Jay ranks next to the Mockingbird in point of abundance among the 


402 PancBurn, Birds of Pinellas County, Fla. [ne 


land birds. They are everywhere and in the city nest in trees along the 
streets and in the yards. There is a noticeable difference in the notes of 
the Florida birds and those found in the North. 

87. Corvus ossifragus. Fisa Crow.— All of the Crows which I 
observed were small in size and had the characteristic call of the Fish Crow. 
It would seem that C. b. pascwus (Florida Crow) must occur in the county 
but I did not see any that I could certainly identify as being of that sub- 
species. 

88. Agelaius phoeniceus floridanus. FLoripa Rep-wina.— Abun- 
dant on both wet and dry keys and in every bog hole and swamp. 

89. Sturnella magna argutula. SourHerN MrapowLarK.— I 
found Meadowlarks abundant everywhere except in the thicker pine woods. 
There is a decided difference in the song from that of S.m. magna. The 
birds were also much tamer than any Meadowlarks I had previously en- 
countered. 

90. Quiscalus quiscula agleus. FLoripa GrackLte.— A common 
bird about the lawns of St. Petersburg. Not as abundant as the following 
species, nor so often seen about the water front or the marshes. 

91. Megaquiscalus major major. Boat-raiLep GRACKLE.— Com- 
mon all along the water front and in the marshes around Salt Lake. A 
favorite perching place was on the mast head of any convenient boat in 
the yacht basin. 

92. Astragalinus tristis tristis. GotprrincH.— Two Goldfinches 
seen on Pass-a-Grille Key on February 11 are my only record of this species. 

93. Pocecetes gramineus gramineus. Vrsper Sparrow.—I saw 
two Vesper Sparrows near Salt Lake on February 27. No other record. 

94. Passerculus sandwichensis savanna. SavaANNAH SPARROW.— 
A small number of Savannah Sparrows were near Salt Lake during Febru- 
ary, but I did not find them anywhere else. 

95. Passerherbulus henslowi henslowi. Hrnstow’s Sparrow.— 
On February 1 and for a few days thereafter two Henslow’s Sparrows were 
present on a scrubby sand field euphemistically known as Bay View Park. 
T did not see any elsewhere. 

96. Passerherbulus maritimus peninsule. Scort’s SEASIDE SPAR- 
row.— All of the region which I visited being south of Tarpon Springs I 
suppose that the Seaside Sparrows, which were fairly common, were of 
this subspecies, although some may have been P. m. fisheri. They were 
decidedly different in appearance from the Seaside Sparrows with which 
I had been familiar in the North. P. m. macgillivraii may also have been 
among those present. This was a case where only a gun could give a 
strictly accurate answer. 

97. Spizella passerina passerina. Cuippinc Sparrow.— One bird 
seen on February 19 is my only record. 

98. Spizella pusilla pusilla. Fierp Sparrow.— A flock of half a 
dozen Field Sparrows seen near Salt Lake on February 7 is my only record 
of this species. 


Oe ine Panapurn, Birds of Pinellas County, Fla. 403 


99. Peucwa estivalis zstivalis. Pine-woops Sparrow.— There 
was one pine grove north of St. Petersburg where the Pine-woods Sparrow 
could always be found, but on the whole it did not appear to be as common 
as I had expected. 

100. Melospiza melodia melodia. Sona Sparrow.— This region 
seemed a little too far south for the Song Sparrow, and two seen on Febru- 
ary 13 are the only ones noted. 

101. Melospiza georgiana. Swamp Sparrow.— Present in small 
numbers in almost all suitable localities, particularly in the swamps about 
Salt Lake. 

102. Pipilo erythrophthalmus erythrophthalmus. Townrr.— 
Towhees were plentiful in suitable country being most abundant where the 
Palmetto scrub was thick. I had a number of opportunities to examine 
birds at very close range and did not see any that could be considered P. e. 
alleni. 

103. Cardinalis cardinalis floridanus. FLorma Carpinau.— One 
of the commonest land birds both in the city yards and the country. 

104. Zamelodia ludoviciana. Rosr-preastep GrosBpeaKk.— A few 
migratory birds, all males, were seen on April 28. This was probably the 
day of their arrival although it seems very late. 

105. Passerina cyanea. Inpico Buntina.— Indigo Buntings were 
common in a few restricted localities April 26 to 29, when I left the region. 

106. Passerina ciris. Painrep Buntinc.— A brightly plumaged 
male was seen by Mr. Howard Hallin February. I have not the exact date. 

107. Piranga erythromelas. Scarytet Tanacer.— This species 
arrived from the tropics April 28. 

108. Progne subis subis. Purrte Martin.— From February 28 
to the time of my departure Purple Martins were constantly seen about 
the city of St. Petersburg and the surrounding country. There are hardly 
any martin houses, the result being that large numbers of them nest under 
cornices of buildings and wharves. 

109. Hirundo erythrogastra. Barn Swatitow.—I saw the first 
Barn Swallow on April 19, after which it was an abundant species. 

110. Iridoprocne bicolor. Trem Swattow.— Noted at Charleston, 
S. C., on January 21, but not seen at St. Petersburg until February 7. 
Regularly observed after that date. 

111. Riparia riparia. Bank Swattow.— One Bank Swallow was 
seen with other swallows about a small pond in St. Petersburg on April 10. 

112. Lanius ludovicianus ludovicianus. LoacrerHeap Sarikn.— 
This species probably stands third in point of abundance among land birds 
throughout Pinellas county, being exceeded only by the Florida Blue Jay 
and the Mockingbird. They live about: close to the houses and seem to be 
quite tame. For the most part their food consists of insects. I saw only 
one bird with a mouse, and none with small birds as prey. Young fully 
feathered and flying were seen with the parent birds during the last‘\week 
of March. 


404 PancBurn, Birds of Pinellas County, Fla. [jute 


113. Lanivireo solitarius solitarius. BLurE-HEADED VirEo.— Seen 
only twice, January 26 in a small park in St. Petersburg and on Pine Key 
on March 25. 

114. Vermivora celata celata. ORANGE-CROWNED WARBLER.— Seen 
in the pine woods near Salt Lake on February 7, a day when warblers were 
more abundant than any other during my stay. This is my only record. 

115. Compsothlypis americana americana. ParuLA WaARBLER.— 
Migratory birds appeared on April 14, after which date they were fre- 
quently seen. 

116. Dendroica coronata. Myrrie Warsier.— One of the most 
abundant birds in the trees of the city streets and yards from my arrival 
January 22 to the end of March after which they were less abundant. 

117. Dendroica dominica dominica. YELLOW-THROATED WaAR- 
BLER.— While not abundant these handsome Warblers could be found regu- 
larly in the denser palmetto groves on the keys, and to a lesser extent in 
the pine woods on the mainland. 

118. Dendroica vigorsi. Pine Warsier.—I first saw the Pine 
Warbler on February 7. It was at no time common, and could be found in 
only a few very restricted localities. 

119. Dendroica palmarum hypochrysea. Yrttow Patm War- 
BLER.— Abundant everywhere up to March 4. After that date they 
rapidly diminished in numbers. It is possible that D. p. palmarum was 
the form most abundant as I have had no experience in differentiating 
between the two in the field. 

120. Dendroica discolor. Pram Warsier.— The song of the 
Prairie Warbler could be constantly heard about the mangrove keys and 
among the mangroves on the shores of the shallow bayous, beginning March 
6. Prior to that I did hear or see the birds. During the first two weeks 
of April they were abundant in the trees along the city streets. 

121. Seiurus aurocapillus. Oven-pirp.— Seen at Salt Lake on 
February 7 and on Pine Key on March 25. 

122. Seiurus motacilla. Lourstana Water THRUSH.— Seen on 
April 26 which was probably some time after its arrival. 

123. Geothlypis trichas ignota. FLorma YrLLow-THRoaT.— A 
moderately common species in two or three places, but never seen else- 
where. Heard in song on February 15. 

124. Anthus rubescens. Prrrr.— One Pipit was seen on the beach 
at St. Petersburg on March 2, and another on a small sand bar in the harbor 
on March 6. The latter was walking about among a flock of Plover, 
Black-skimmers and Caspian Terns. 

125. Mimus polyglottos polyglottos. Mocxinepirp.— The Mock- 
ingbird is the most conspicuous, most abundant and best known land bird 
in the county. Every yard has one or more nests, and the birds can be seen 
and heard all day long everywhere. They also sing most of the night in 
smaller numbers, especially when the moon is shining. 


eeee | / PaneBurN, Birds of Pinellas County, Fla. 405 


126. Dumetella carolinensis. Carsrrp.—I saw only one Catbird 
during my entire stay. This was at Salt Lake. 

127. Toxostomarufum. Brown THRASHER.— The Brown Thrasher 
was nearly as uncommon as the Catbird except in one spot where two or 
three individuals could usually be found. Perhaps the extreme abundance 
of the Mockingbird crowds the other Mimide. 

128. Thryothorus ludovicianus miamensis.— FLorIpA WrEN.— 
This form of the Carolina Wren was regularly found about Salt Lake 
and a few bayous, but I did not find it elsewhere. 

129. Thryomanes bewicki bewicki. Brwick’s Wren.— On Feb- 
ruary 27 I saw a Bewick’s Wren north of the city. I was unable to visit 
the place again, and did not find the species elsewhere. 

130. Troglodytes aedon aedon. Houszr Wren.— Only one record. 
Seen near Salt Lake February 19. 

131. Regulus calendula calendula. Rusy-crowNep KIna@Luet.— 
A wave of Ruby-crowned Kinglets together with the following species 
appeared on February 5 and lasted until the 18th after which none were 
seen. During that time they were everywhere, being especially abundant 
in the camphor trees along the city streets. 

132. Polioptila czrulea czrulea. BuLun-GRAY GNATCATCHER.— 
Came and went with the Ruby-crowned Kinglets. Extremely common 
during the two weeks mentioned under the preceding species. 

133. Hylocichla guttata pallasi. Hermir THruso.— I saw several 
Hermit Thrushes at Salt Lake on February 7. I have no other record. 

134. Planesticus migratorius migratorius. Rosrn.— Robins were 
rather scarce in Pinellas county. I saw them but rarely and then usually 
near or about the so-called “ muck lots,’’ where because of the black soil 
they probably found worms. The universal white sand discourages worm 
hunting elsewhere. 

135. Sialia sialis sialis. Buussrmp.— While not particularly abun- 
dant Bluebirds could be found in many sections in fair numbers. 


Reve 


406 OBERHOLSER, Notes on North American Birds. Jule 


NOTES ON NORTH AMERICAN BIRDS. 
VIII. 


BY HARRY C. OBERHOLSER. 


In the present installment! of these notes on North American 
birds there are discussed forms of three species belonging respec- 
tively to the families Motacillide, Sylviide, and Troglodytide. 


Anthus spinoletta rubescens (Tunstall). 


In a comparatively recent publication? Dr. Ernst Hartert 
treated the American Pipit as a subspecies of Anthus spinoletta? 
Only a superficial examination is required to demonstrate that this 
is the correct view of its relationship. It is distinguishable from 
Anthus spinoletta spinoletta by its smaller size and by the more 
deeply ochraceous or cinnamon rufous suffusion on the under 
surface. So far as measurements are concerned, the difference 
between these two forms is merely average, since the extremes 
considerably overlap. Both these birds have a wide range of 
individual variation in color which manifests itself strikingly in 
two extreme color phases, one gray, the other deep ochraceous, 
between which there are all sorts of intermediates. There is also 
much difference in the amount of streaking on the lower parts, 
some specimens being almost immaculate, while others are very 
heavily marked on the breast and sides. This great individual 
variation so completely and widely overlaps the distinctions 
between Anthus rubescens and Anthus spinoletta that only on 
average characters are they separable even as subspecies. It is, 
therefore, perfectly evident that the former should stand as Anthus 
spinoletta rubescens (Tunstall). 


1 For previous papers in this series, cf. ‘The Auk,’ XXXIV, April, 1917, pp. 191-196; 
XXXIV, July, 1917, pp. 321-329; XX XIV, October, 1917, pp. 465-470; XX XV, January, 
1918, pp. 62-65; XX XV, April, 1918, pp. 185-187; XX XV, October, 1918, pp. 463-467; 
XXXVI, January, 1919, pp. 81-85. 

2 Vogel palaarkt. Fauna, Heft III, June, 1905, p. 282. 

3 Alauda Spinoletta Linnzeus, Syst. Nat., ed. 10, I, 1758, p. 166 (Italy). 


. XXX : : 
vel cia | OBERHOLSER, Notes on North American Birds. 407 


Acanthopneuste borealis kennicotti (Baird). 


The Kennicott Willow Warbler, Acanthopneuste borealis kenni- 
cotti, originally described by Professor Baird! and subsequently 
revived by Mr. Ridgway,” has for some unaccountable reason not 
been currently recognized. It is undoubtedly a good subspecies, 
differing from Acanthopneuste borealis borealis in its much smaller 
size, particularly of wing, tail, and bill, and in its somewhat less 
yellowish, more grayish upper parts, particularly at the spring 
and summer seasons. It should, therefore, be restored to a place 
in our North American list. It breeds in middle and western Alaska 
and migrates to parts of southeastern Asia. 


Salpinctes obsoletus guadeloupensis Ridgway. 


The Guadalupe Rock Wren, Salpinctes guadeloupensis Ridgway, 
was originally described as a subspecies of Salpinctes obsoletus, 
but is commonly considered a distinct species. Mr. Ridgway has, 
however, within recent years * again reduced it to a subspecies of 
Salpinctes obsoletus, though this seems to have been ignored by 
present day writers. The study of a series of some 190 specimens 
of Salpinctes obsoletus and 25 of Salpinctes guadeloupensis unques- 
tionably substantiates Mr. Ridgway’s opinion in regard to their 
subspecific relationship. All the measurements of these two birds 
fully inosculate, as may be readily seen from the detailed figures 
that Mr. Ridgway has given.‘ In color the two birds look very 
different at first sight, but there not infrequently occur examples 
that completely bridge over the differences in coloration. In fact, 
the most deeply colored specimens of Salpinctes obsoletus obsoletus are 
really darker than the lightest examples of Salpinctes guadeloupensis. 
Moreover, Salpinctes obsoletus neglectus, which is an undoubted sub- 
species of Salpinctes obsoletus, is, in the shade of the upper surface, 


1 Phyllopneuste kennicotti Baird, Trans. Chicago Acad. Sci., I,.1869, p. 313, pl. 30, fig. 2. 
(St. Michael, Alaska). 

2 Bull. U.S. Nat. Mus., No. 50, part III, 1904, p. 696. 

3 Bull. U.S. Nat. Mus., No. 50, part III, 1904, p. 650. 

4 Bull. U.S. Nat. Mus., No. 50, part III, 1904, pp. 645, 646, 650. 


[Fae 


- 408 OBERHOLSER, Races of Hedymeles melanocephalus. Tule 


almost the same as Salpinctes guadelowpensis. Furthermore, in 
testing Mr. W. De W. Miller’s criterion of distinctness for Salpinctes 
guadeloupensis! the ratio of wing-length to exposed culmen we get 
the following results in our series; Salpinctes obsoletus obsoletus, 
3.4-4.2; Salpinctes obsoletus neglectus, 3.3-3.7; Salpinctes guadelou- 
pensis, 3.0-3.5. It is thus evident that even this character inoscu- 
lates. The Guadalupe Rock Wren and its subspecies should 
therefore stand as 


Salpinctus obsoletus guadeloupensis Ridgway. 


Salpinctus obsoletus proximus Swarth. 


THE GEOGRAPHIC RACES OF HEDYMELES MELANO- 
CEPHALUS SWAINSON. 


BY HARRY C. OBERHOLSER. 


Tuat there are two subspecies of Hedymeles * melanocephalus is 
pretty generally recognized. Determination of the 245 specimens 
of this species in the United States National Museum, including 
the Biological Survey Collection, has, however, revealed the fact 
that the names and geographic ranges of these forms seem to be 
in need of readjustment. 

The results of this study appear worth placing on record, which 
we shall endeavor to do in the following pages. 


Hedymeles melanocephalus melanocephalus Swainson. 


Guiraca melanocephala Swartnson, Philos. Mag., New Ser., I, June, 
1827, p. 438 (Temascaltepec, Mexico, Mexico). 

Fringilla epopea LicHTENnsTEIN, Preis-Verz. Siiug., Végel, Amphib., 
Fische, und Krebse Mex., 1830, p. 2 (Mexico). 


1The Auk, XXXVI, No. 2, April, 1919, p. 295. 
2 For the use of the generic name Hedymeles instead of Zamelodia, cf. Oberholser, “The 
Auk,’ XXXVI, No. 1, January, 1919, p. 115. 


VO al OseRHoLsmR, Races of Hedymeles melanocephalus. 409 
Fringilla xanthomaschalis WAGLER, Isis, 1831, col. 525 (Mexico). 
Fringilla maculata AupuBon, Birds Amer., folio ed., IV, 1837, pl. 373, 

figs. 2, 3, 4 (Columbia River). 

Guiraca tricolor Lesson, Rev. Zool., II, April, 1839, p. 102 (Mexico). 

Pitylus guttatus Lesson, Rev. Zool., I, April, 1839, p. 102 (Mexico). 

[Hedymeles melanocephalus| var. capitalis Batrp, in Baird, Brewer, & 
Ridgway’s Hist. North Amer. Birds, II, 1874, p. 70 (Columbia River, 
Oregon). 

Zamelodia melanocephala microrhyncha GRINNELL, Condor, II, No. 6, 
Nov. 16, 1900, p. 128 (Buckhorn Canyon, Sierra San Gabriel, Los Angeles 
Co., California). 

Chars. subsp.— Size small; particularly of wing, tail, and bill; a post- 
ocular tawny streak usually present. ; 

Measurements.i.— Male:2 wing, 96.5-101.5 (average, 98.8) mm.; tail, 
71.2-81.2 (77.5); exposed culmen, 15.2-17.8 (16.5); height of bill at base, 
13.1-15.1 (14.1); tarsus, 22.6-24.9 (23.1); middle toe without claw, 
16.5-18.3 (17.8). 

Female: * wing, 93.5-104.1 (average, 97.8) mm.; tail, 74.9-81.3 (78.2); 
exposed culmen, 15.8-20.1 (17.5); height of bill at base, 14.-15.8 (15); 
tarsus, 22.4-25.7 (23.6); middle toe without ‘claw, 17.3-18.8 (17.8). 

Type locality.— Tamascaltepec, Mexico, Mexico. 

Geographic distribution.— Mexico and the Pacific Coast region of the 
United States and southern British Columbia. Breeds north in Mexico 
to northern Vera Cruz, Hidalgo, Guanajuato, and Oposura in north central 
Sonora, and on the Pacific Coast to southern British Columbia; west to 
Vancouver Island in British Columbia, western California, Lower Cali- 
fornia, Durango, Jalisco, Colima, and Michoacan; south to Guerrerro 
and Oaxaca; and east to Oaxaca, Vera Cruz, Durango, northeastern Lower 
California, eastern California, southeastern Oregon, and west central 
Idaho. Winters north to southern Lower California, Mazatlan in Sinaloa 
and to the Valley of Mexico, and south to Oaxaca and to Chicharras in 
Chiapas. 


Remarks— The separation of Hedymeles melanocephalus into 
two subspecies was originally made on the basis of the difference 
existing between the birds of California and those of the Rocky 


1Taken by Mr. Robert Ridgway and published in part in his ‘‘ Birds of North and 
Middle America”’ (Bull. U. S. Nat. Mus., No. 50, part I, 1901, pp. 618-619). It is of 
importance to note that the measurement of the height of the bill is taken in a straight 
line from the base of the exposed culmen to the malar apex, not to the nearest point on the 
ramus of the mandible. This gives a substantially greater measurement than the latter 
and more common method, and the fact that Mr. Ridgway uses this measurement through- 
out the volume just quoted, which contains the Fringillidz, persons who consult this book 
should bear in mind. 

2 Fifteen specimens, from California and Oregon. 

3 Eight specimens, from California. 


(pas 


410 OBERHOLSER, Races of Hedymeles melanocephalus. July 


Mountain region of the United States. Mr. Ridgway found, 
however, that the birds breeding in Mexico are much smaller than 
those of the Rocky Mountains from Arizona to Wyoming, and, 
in fact, are close to California specimens. Subsequently, by 
authors who regard the California race as distinct, the Mexican 
birds were considered identical with those from the Rocky Moun- 
tains, and both together were treated as the typical form. Mr. 
Ridgway, apparently for the same reason, decided not to recognize 
two races. It is now evident from a reéxamination of the matter 
that, while the Rocky Mountain bird differs appreciably from that 
of California, that of Mexico, though somewhat intermediate, 
is so near in characters to the latter that it must be referred to this 
form instead of to the Rocky Mountain race. This close approxi- 
mation in size may be readily seen from the following average 
measurements of 18 adult males from Mexico, which may be com- 
pared with the measurements of the present race above given: 
wing, 99.6; tail, 78.5; exposed culmen, 17.5; height of bill at base, 
14.7; tarsus, 23.9; middle toe without claw, 17.3. The only 
other alternative is the recognition of three forms, which, in view 
of the slight and inconstant difference between birds from Mexico 
and California, seems certainly not desirable. The inclusion of 
the Mexican bird with that of California, of course, makes the 
latter a part of the typical form, and the name now used for it, 
Hedymeles melanocephalus capitalist becomes consequently a 
synonym of Hedymeles melanocephalus; and the Rocky Mountain 
bird requires a new name. 

It is of interest, moreover, to note in this connection that even if 
the former arrangement were to be continued, neither of the names 
that have been used for the California bird, Hedymeles melano- 
cephalus capitalis Baird? and Zamelodia melanocephala micro- 
rhyncha? is tenable, for both are long antedated by Fringilla maculata 
Audubon,’ which was based on a bird from the Columbia River. 
In fact, the type of Hedymeles melanocephalus capitals Baird, 


1[Hedymeles melanocephalus] var. capitalis Baird, in Baird, Brewer, & Ridgway’s History 
of North American Birds, II, 1874, p. 70. 

2 Loc. cit. 

3 Grinnell, Condor, II, No. 6, Nov. 16, 1900, p. 128. 

4 Birds Amer., folio ed., IV, 1837, pl. 373, figs. 2, 3, 4. 


Oa OBERHOLSER, Races of Hedymeles melanocephalus. All 
which is still in the United States National Museum, is a specimen 
collected by J. K. Townsend on the Columbia River, July 28, 
1835, and received by Professor Baird from Audubon; and it is 
without much doubt the very specimen from which Audubon drew 
the male figure of Fringilla maculata for his folio plate. 

Birds from the State of Guanajuato in Mexico are rather large, 
but are referable to the present form, and possibly represent 
nearly or quite its northern limit in this region. Specimens from 
the Cocopah Mountains in northeastern Lower California are 
practically typical, though they have a slightly longer wing than 
California birds. Examples from southeastern Oregon, north- 
eastern Oregon, and western Idaho are rather large but clearly 
nearer the present race. 

The 104 specimens examined come from the following localities: 

California— Baird, Shasta Co. (May 11, 21, and 23, 1883; 
June 9, 20, and 23, 1883); Ft. Tejon; San Francisco; Stanford 
University (June 6, 1900); San Dimas Canyon, Los Angeles Co. 
(June 27, 1915); Dominguez Rancho, Los Angeles Co. (April 22, 
1915); Petaluma, Sonoma Co. (May 16, 1856); Hayward (July 
26, 28, and 29, 1903; Aug. 8, 1901); Three Rivers (July 12, 1904); 
Honey Lake (June 16, 1877); Santa Barbara (June 27 and 29, 
1875); Marin County (June 26, 1878); Calaveras (1852); Clover- 
dale (April 22, 1889); Santa Cruz (Aug. 17, 1891); Fyffe, El 
Dorado Co. (June 13, 1898); Ukiah (April 26, 1889); Laguna 
Station, San Diego Co. (May 5, 1894); Jacumba, San Diego Co. 
(May 23 and 27, 1894); Palo Alto (May 30, 1898); Hayden’s 
Ranch, San Diego Co. (May 31, 1894); Red Bluff (May 2, 1884); 
Riverside (April 20, 1889); San Diego (April 11, 1882); Laguna, 
San Diego Co. (June 13, 1894); Cameron Ranch, San Diego Co.; 
Heninger Flats, San Gabriel Mts. (July 8, 1905); Millard Canyon, 
San Bernardino Mts. (May 8, 1909); Shepherd Canyon, Argus 
Range (April 26, 1891); Maturango Spring, Argus Range (May 14 
and 15, 1891); Chico (Aug. 5, 1904); Paraiso Springs (July 7, 
1902); Camp Badger (May 17, 1894). 

Idaho.— South Fork of Salmon River, 12 miles east of Warren 
(Aug. 2, 1913); Weiser (June 13, 1913); Idaho City (June 17, 
1910). 

Oregon.— Rockville, Malheur Co. (July 15, 1915); Eugene 


+ 412 OBERHOLSER, Races of Hedymeles melanocephalus. [ae 


(June 18 and 19, 1914); Tillamook (July 3, 1897); Haycreek 
(May 17, 1915); Portland (July 8, 1897); Homestead (June 6, 
1916). 

Washington.— Mt. St. Helens (Aug. 10, 1897). 

Colima.— Plains of Colima (October, 1863; January, 1863). 

Durango.— Chacala (March 1, 1899); El Salto (July 25, 1898). 

Guanajuato.— Guanajuato; Cupataro. 

Guerrero.— Omilteme (May 25, 1903). 

Hidalgo.— F\ Chico (March 23 and 24, 1893). 

Lower California.— East base of Cocopah Mts. (April 13, 1905); 
Seven Wells (April 16, 1894); San Ysidro Ranch (June 30, 1894); 
San José (February, 1860); Pichilinqua Bay (Jan. 23, 1882); 
Gardner’s Laguna, Salton River (April 24, 1894); Nachoguero 
Valley (June 1 and 5, 1894). 

Mezico— Tlalpam (Dec. 24, 1892); Lerma (July 3, 1904). 

Michoacan — Patzcuaro (July 20, 1892). 

Morelos— Huitzilac (Dec. 28, 1892; Jan. 1, 1893); Tetela del 
Volean (Feb. 10, 1893); Cuernavaca (Jan. 5, 1893). 

Oaxaca— Oaxaca (June 21, 1894). 

Puebla— Chalchicomula (April 13, 1893); Mt. Orizaba (April 
26, 1893); Orizaba; Puebla. 

Sinaloa— Mazatlan (February, 1866). 

Sonora— Near Oposura (April 14, 1887). 

Tlaxcala— Huamantla (May 11, 1893). 

Vera Cruz—Jico (July 14, 1893); Mirador, near Vera Cruz 
(June, 1864). 


Hedymeles melanocephalus papago, subsp. nov. 


Zamelodia melanocephala melanocephala Auct. nec SWAINSON. 

Chars. subsp.— Similar to Hedymeles melanocephalus melanocephalus, 
but larger, especially the wing, tail, and bill; postocular stripe usually 
absent. 

Description. Type, adult male, No. 129086, U. 8. Nat. Mus.; Santa 
Cruz River, west of Patagone Mountains, Arizona, June 21, 1893; Frank X., 
Holzner, original number, 1634. Pileum, upper cervix, back, wings, and tail 
black, the wing-quills and the outer webs of the rectrices somewhat brown- 
ish; streaks on the cervical collar, on back, rump, and short upper tail- 
coverts, ochraceous tawny; long upper tail-coverts black tipped with 


ee aha OBERHOLSER, Faces of Hedymeles melanocephalus. 413 
grayish white; the broad tips of the median wing-coverts, terminal spot 
on the outer webs of each of the greater coverts, a conspicuous wing specu- 
lum on the eight outer primaries (on both webs except on the outermost 
feather), and a terminal spot on the outer webs of each of the secondaries 
and tertials, white; subterminal edging on sinuated portion of the external 
webs of four outer primaries (excepting the outermost), and large (18 mm. 
long) terminal spots on the inner webs of the two outermost rectrices, 
also white; chin black; throat and jugulum like cervix; sides of body, 
of breast, and of upper abdomen, together with flanks, light ochraceous 
tawny, palest posteriorly; middle of breast and of upper abdomen rather 
dull lemon chrome; lower abdomen white; crissum ochraceous buff, the 
longest lower tail-coverts ochraceous buff; thighs deep fuscous, spotted 
with white; lining of wings lemon chrome. 

Measurements. Type: length (in flesh), 221 mm.; extent (in flesh), 
336; wing, 102.5; tail, 85.5; exposed culmen, 21.5; height of bill at base, 
15.5; tarsus, 25; middle toe without claw, 17.5. 

Male:? wing, 99.3-109.2 (average, 103.1) mm.; tail, 76.2-86.9 (81.8); 
exposed culmen, 17.5-20.3 (18.5); height of bill at base, 15.-17.5 (15.5); 
tarsus, 22.9-25.4 (24.1); middle toe without claw, 16.3-19.1 (17.8). 

Female: wing, 96.5-104.6 (average, 99.8) mm.; tail, 74.2-86.4 (79.3); 
exposed culmen, 1820.1 (19.1); height of bill at base, 15.-16.3 (15.8); 
tarsus, 22.9-25.7 (23.9); middle toe without claw, 17.3-18.5 (17.5). 

Type locality— Santa Cruz River, west of the Patagone Mountains, 
near the Mexican Boundary Line, southern Arizona. 

Geographic distribution Mexico and the west central portion of the 
United States, and southern Saskatchewan. Breeds north to northwestern 
North Dakota, northeastern Montana, and southwestern Saskatchewan; 
west to eastern Idaho, western Nevada, western Arizona, and La Chumata, 
near Opodepe, north central Sonora; south to the last mentioned locality, 
southeastern Coahuila, and southwestern Tamaulipas; and east to south- 
western Tamaulipas, central western Nuevo Leon, central western Texas, 
eastern New Mexico, eastern Kansas, central Nebraska, and central North 
Dakota. Winters from the State of Durango in Mexico to Puebla and 
probably to southern Mexico. Migrates east to eastern Nebraska and 
central Texas. 


Remarks— Color is much less important than size for the char- 
acterization of this race, and particularly for the identification of 
specimens, because such color differences as exist are not very 


1 Taken, except those of the type, by Mr. Robert Ridgway. The same remarks apply 
to these measurements as to those of Hedymeles melanocephalus melanocephalus, for which 
see footnote on page 409. 

2 Twenty-four specimens, from Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, Wyom- 
ing, and North Dakota. 

3 Seven specimens, from Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming. 


(fae 


414 OBERHOLSER, Races of Hedymeles melanoce phalus. ale 


satisfactory. The absence of a tawny postocular stripe in Hedy- 
meles melanocephalus papago is the best color character. The 
tendency of birds from the Rocky Mountains to have the crown 
solidly black instead of with a tawny median stripe is very incon- 
stant, and, besides, is shared by Mexican birds, and is thus of no 
diagnostic value. The difference in the depth of the color on the 
throat, breast, sides, rump, and crissum, and the width of the white 
tips on the median coverts, mentioned by Dr. Grinnell in the 
original description of his Zamelodia melanocephalus microrhyncha; 
prove by examination of our large series to be merely individual 
variations. 

Breeding birds from Jaumave, Tamaulipas; Sierra Guadalupe, 
Coahuila; and Cerro de la Silla, Nuevo Leon, are practically 
typical of the present subspecies; and a single female from Atlixco, 
Puebla, without date, but which, of course, represents a winter 
record, is also typical. Specimens from Pyramid Lake, the Moni- 
tor Mountains, Toyabe Mountains, and Mountain City, all m 
Nevada, are a little small but much nearer Hedymeles melano- 
cephalus papago than to the typical race. The same remarks will 
apply to birds from localities in southeastern Idaho. 

An adult male (No. 49757, U. S. Nat. Mus.) from Camp Grant, 
Arizona, taken, May 14, 1867, by Dr. Edward Palmer, exhibits 
a peculiar individual plumage variation in the color of the upper 
throat, which is bright yellow. ji 

As explained under Hedymeles melanocephalus melanocephalus, 
all the names applied to the species pertain to that race, since we 
now refer the Mexican representatives to the same subspecies as 
those from California. 

Of this race 141 specimens have been examined, from the sub- 
joined localities: 

Arizona— Fort Huachuca (May 9, 1892; July 22, 1893); 
Huachuca Mts. (July 26, 27, 28, and 31, 1893; Aug. 17 and 20, 
1893; Sept. 5, 1893; July 12, 1888); Grand Canyon of the Colo- 
rado (May 14, 1884); Fort Whipple (July 21, 1865; Aug. 10, 1864); 
San Pedro Slope of Santa Catalina Mts., Pinal Co. (May 5, 1885); 
Santa Catalina Mts. (May 31, 1889); Squaw Peak, Verde Mts. 


1* Condor,’ II, No. 6, Nov. 16, 1900, p.. 128. 


ald OBERHOLSER, Races of Hedymeles melanocephalus. 415 
(May 9, 1888); Apache (Sept. 13, 1873); Fossil Creek, Yavapai 
Co. (June 20, 1885); Pinal County (Sept. 5 and 16, 1884; Aug. 19, 
1884); Bowie (Aug. 15, 1874); Willow Spring (July 12, 1874); 
Camp Grant, 60 miles east of Tucson (May 14, 1867); Tucson 
(May 15, 1884); Fort Verde (Sept. 14, 1886); Oak Creek, 25 miles 
north of Fort Verde (Aug. 13, 1885); Santa Rita Mts. (June 8 
and 11, 1884; July 1, 1884); San Francisco Mt. (Aug. 10, 1889; 
Sept. 5, 1889); Ash Creek, Graham Mts. (May 9 and 11, 1914); 
Rice, on San Carlos Indian Reservation (May 18, 1916). 

Colorado— Colorado Springs; Pueblo County (May 24, 1893; 
May 25, 1892); Pueblo (Aug. 1, 1874); Canyon of the Grand 
River (Sept. 14, 1889); East Plum Creek (June 4, 1873); Garland 
(June 19, 1873). 

Idaho—— Shelley (July 29, 1911; Aug. 4, 1911); Pocatello 
(June 16, 1911); American Falls (May 27, 1911; June 4 and 5, 
1911); Blackfoot (July 8, 1890); Idaho City (June 17, 1910); 
Blue Spring Hills, Oneida Co. (May 31, 1916). 

Montana.— Benton (Aug. 7 and 8, 1910); Junction of Pilgrim 
Creek and Powder River, 10 miles northeast of Broadus (June 12, 
1916); 10 miles southwest of Broadus (June 20, 1916); 25 miles 
southwest of Broadus (June 21, 1916); Highwood Mts. (Aug. 23, 
1910); Fort Keogh (June, 1889; June 7, 1889); Reese Creek (Aug. 
11, 1888); near Hillsdale (Aug. 15, 1888); Glasgow (June 18, 
1910). 

North Dakota— Buford (May 30, 1910); Cannonball (Aug. 17, 
1915);. Fort Totten (July 13, 1915); Fort Union (June 26, 1843); 
Fort Rice (June 16, 1873). 

New Mezxico.— Southeastern slope of Capitan Mts. (July 15, 
1903); northwestern foothills of Capitan Mts. (June 27, 1903); 
Willis (July 15, 1903); Rinconada (May 6 and 8, 1904); north 
slope of Animas Peak, Animas Mts. (July 29 and 30, 1908; Aug. 6, 
1908); Bear Ridge, Zuni Mts. (June 19, 1909); Fort Wingate 
(June 29, 1905; Sept. 14, 1888); Pecos Baldy (Aug. 5, 1903); 
Oak Canyon, Raton Range (Sept. 2, 1903); Capitan (June 27, 
1903); Red River at 9500 feet altitude (Aug. 16, 1904); Dog 
Spring, Grant Co. (May 24, 1892); west side of San Luis Mts., 
Mexican Boundary Line (July 14 and 19, 1892); east side of San 
Luis Mts., Mexican Boundary Line (June 23, 24, 25, and 26, 1892). 


Auk 


416 OBERHOLSER, Races of Hedymeles melanocephalus. [ily 


Nevada.— Pyramid Lake (June 12, 1889); South Twin River, 
Toyabe Mts. (Aug. 19, 1915); Jett Canyon, Toyabe Mts. (Aug. 
13, 1915); Monitor Mts., 25 miles southwest of Eureka (June 9, 
1898); Mountain City (June 12 and 14, 1898). 

Texas.— Marathon (May 15, 1901); Pine Canyon, Chisos Mts. 
(June 3, 1901). 

Utah.— Salt Lake City (May 24, 1869); Parley’s Park, Wasatch 
Mts. (July 29, 1869); Ogden (June 7 and 8, 1872); Provo (July 29 
and 30, 1873; July 30, 1872). 

Wyoming.— Fort Steele (May 23, 24, and 25, 1911); Greybull 
(June 7, 10, and 13, 1910); Fort Bridger (May 24, 1858; June 1, 
1858); Laramie; Fort Laramie (May 28 and 31, 1878); Sage 
Creek, fork of Stinking Creek (June 13, 1860). 

Coahuila.— Sierra Guadalupe (April 27, 1902). . 

Durango.— Chacala (Feb. 27, 1899). 

Nuevo Leon.— Cerro de la Silla (March 24, 1902). 

Puebla.— Atlixco (1883). 

Sonora.— La Chumata, near Opodepe (May 27, 1905). 

Tamaulipas.— Jaumave (June 6, 1898). 


er | General Notes. 417 


GENERAL NOTES. 


The Generic Name of the Gannets.— Several years ago Mr. G. M. 
Mathews proposed the recognition (Austral Avian Record, II, Nos. 2-3, 
Oct. 23, 1913, pp. 55-56) of Pelecanus bassanus Linneus and the other 
Gannets as a genus apart from the other species of Sula Brisson. On a 
later occasion (Birds Australia, IV, pt. 3, June 23, 1915, pp. 204-207, 
217-218) he elaborated the diagnosis of this group and showed conclusively 
the claims of the Gannets to generic distinction. The feathered face, the 
proportions of wing, tail, tarsus, and culmen, and particularly the scutellate 
toes and parts of the front of the tarsus are more than ample characters. 
He further mentioned (Birds Australia, IV, pt. 3, 1915, p. 202) what had 
for some time been known, that the name Dysporus Illiger (Prodrom. 
Mamm. et Avium, 1811, p. 279), which has frequently been used in either 
generic or subgeneric sense for the Gannets, is merely a substitute term for 
Sula Brisson, on grounds of purism. The next name in point of time, 
Morus Vieillot (Analyse Nouv. Méth. d’Ornith. Elément., April, 1816, p. 
63), is preoccupied by Morwm Bolten, 1798, for a genus of Mollusca, and 
for this reason Mr. Mathews has named the group of Gannets Sulita 
(Austral Avian Record, II, No. 7, Jan. 28, 1915, p. 123; type by original 
designation, Pelecanus bassanus Linnzus). The name Moris Leach (Syst. 
Cat. Spec. Indig. Mamm. and Birds Brit. Mus., August, 1816, p. 35; type 
by monotypy Moris Bassana [= Pelecanus bassanus Linnzeus], he rejects 
(Birds Australia, IV, pt. 3, 1915, p. 202) as a nomen nudum; and Moris 
Forster (Synop. Cat. Brit. Birds, 1817, p. 59) as a “ mis-spelling of Morus 
only ” (Birds Australia, IV, pt. 3, 1915, p. 217). According to the A. O. U. 
Code of Nomenclature, Mr. Mathews is correct in the rejection of Morus 
Vieillot on account of the prior Moruwm Bolten; but neither the A. O. U. 
Code nor the International Code permits the rejection of Moris because of 
either Morus or Morum, since Moris is a word not merely of different gram- 
matical gender, but of different classical termination. Furthermore, the 
generic names in the publication of Leach quoted above are not nomina 
nuda, being properly joined with already duly described specific names; 
and in this particular case the species is unequivocably recognizable. 
Moreover, even if Leach’s name Moris be disregarded, as of course it 
should not be, it would then be necessary to fall back on Moris Forster, 
1817, which of course is a perfectly legitimate substitute for Morus Vieillot. 
Thus, in any case, the generic name of the Gannets will become Moris, 
and the species stand as follows: 

Moris bassana (Linneeus). 
Moris capensis (Lichtenstein). 
Moris serrator serrator (Gray). 
Moris serrator dyotti (Mathews). 


Harry C. OBERHOLSER, Washington, D. C. 


418 General Notes. [7 at 


Polysticta versus Stellaria — a Correction.— In the recent note on 
the generic names Polysticta and Stellaria (The Auk, XXXVI, No. 2, 
April, 1919, p. 277), there occurs a wrong citation, to which Dr. C. W. 
Richmond has kindly directed our attention. Lest this cause confusion it 
seems worth while now to make the necessary correction. We have cited 
the original place of publication of Polysticte Smith as ‘ Illust. South Afr. 
Zodél.,” whereas it should be ‘‘ Report Expedition Explor. Central Africa.” 
The date, however, is correct as given — ‘“ June (or later) 1836.’? — 
Harry C. OBERHOLSER, Washington, D. C. 


Megalestris versus Catharacta.— Mr. G. M. Mathews has already 
indicated (Novit. Zodl., XVII, No. 3, December 15, 1910, p. 498; Birds 
Australia, II, pt. 5, January 31, 1913, p. 489) that the name Catharacta 
Briinnich must be used in place of Megalestris Bonaparte, and in this he 
seems to be quite right. Some additional details, however, regarding 
this interesting and complicated case, about which so much has been 
written, may not be out of place from the viewpoint of American orni- 
thology. The generic name Catharacta was originally proposed by Briin- 
nich (Ornith. Bor., 1764, p. 32) for the following four species: (1) skua 
(= Megalestris skua Auct.); (2) cepphus (= Stercorarius parasiticus 
[Linnzeus]); (8) parasitica (= Stercorarius longicaudus Vieillot); (4) 
coprotheres (= Stercorarius parasiticus [Linnzus]); and its type was 
apparently first designated by Reichenbach (Syst. Avium, 1851, p. v) as 
Catharacta skua Briinnich. Dr. J. A. Allen, in discussing this case at 
considerable length (The Auk, XXI, No. 3, July, 1904, pp. 345-348), 
came to the conclusion that Catharacta was untenable on account of the 
prior Catarractes Brisson (Ornith., VI, 1760, p. 102; type by monotypy 
and tautonomy, Aptenodytes chrysocome Forster). This, however, was 
before the publication of the revised edition of the American Ornithologists’ 
Union Code of Nomenclature, which provides that names differing in 
classical endings shall for purposes of nomenclature be considered distinct. 
Since this applies, of course, to the present case, the name Catharacta 
Briimnich becomes tenable, for it is not to be rejected on account of the 
previous Catarractes. The following species, together with their subspecies, 
will be affected by this change: 

Catharacta skua Briinnich. 
Catharacta antarctica (Lesson). 
Catharacta chilensis (Saunders). 
Catharacta lonnbergi Mathews. 
Catharacta maccormicki (Saunders). 


Harry C. Osernorser, Washington, D. C: 


Destructive Invasion by an Australian Rail.— Irregular migration 
of species of birds in large numbers is a phenomenon seemingly unknown in 
the United States since the days of the Passenger Pigeon; indeed such a 
happening is rare in any part of the world. Readers of ‘The Auk’ will 


° 


Vol. SVE General Notes. 419 


no doubt be interested in the following account quoted from the ‘ Journal 
of Agriculture of South Australia’ (Vol. 22, No. 7, Feb. 1919, pp. 556-57): 

“The Murray River settlements are this year suffering an invasion of 
black-tailed native hens, Tribonyx ventralis. These birds, which have the 
habit of migrating in flocks, are visiting some of the irrigation settlements 
in countless thousands, and have already done considerable damage by 
eating out lucerne plots and other green crops, and devouring fruit. In 
some cases fruitgrowers found it necessary to stack trays on which apricots 
were being dried, and there is considerable apprehension in some quarters 
in regard to the safety of the grape crop. 

One satisfactory feature in so far as the native hen is concerned is that 


the experience of the past suggests that it appears only at long intervals. 


In 1846 it is reported that the bird invaded the streets of Adelaide, in 1886 
it reached Perth, and Northern Victoria was visited in 1909.”’— W. L 
McAter, Washington, D. C. 


Sarcidiornis sylvicola in Venezuela.—I should like to report the 
collection of three living specimens of Sarcidiornis sylvicola Ihering, in 
November, 1918, near Barcelona, Venezuela. These birds were taken by 
Gustave Sebille, a professional collector, who netted them in a nearby 
lagoon. They are now living in the New York Zodélogical Park. There 
are two males and one female, just beginning to assume adult plumage, 
the combs of the males being represented by a slight swelling at the base 
of the upper mandible. The resemblance between these birds when in 
immature plumage and wild Muscovy Ducks of the same age is striking, 
though the legs of the comb ducks are noticeably longer. 

As they were quite immature when taken, it is reasonable to suppose 
they were reared in the vicinity of their capture. Barcelona is on the 
northern coast of Venezuela. The distribution of Sarcidiornis sylvicola 
is given by Brabourne and Chubb as Brazil, Paraguay and northern Argen- 
tina, so the present record seems to imply a considerable extension of range. 
— Lee S. Cranpatu, New York Zoélogical Park. 


Occurrence of the Red Phalarope in Pennsylvania.— Mr. Edmund 
Cocks recently sent to the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 
for identification, a specimen of the Red Phalarope (Phalaropus fulicarius) 
which had been picked up in a dying condition near George School, Bucks 
County,.Pa., on December 15, 1918. Later the specimen was mounted 
and presented to the local collection at the Academy. So far as I can 
ascertain this is the first record of the species in the state, and even on the 
coast of New Jersey we have very few records, the Northern Phalarope 
being the most frequent of the three species of the family. Curiously 
enough shortly after the capture of this specimen a skin of the same 
species was presented to the Academy by Dr. C. E. Ehinger, which had 
been secured near Lenape, Chester Co., Pa., at about the same time. 


420 General Notes. — [iy 


West Chester is about forty miles southwest of George School. The two 
occurrences would seem to indicate that a flock of these birds had been 
blown inland from the ocean and that these and perhaps others had become 
exhausted.— WITMER STONE, Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia. 


The Status of the Genus Archibuteo, Brehm.— Since proposing 
(The Auk, XX XVII, No. 2, April, 1919, p. 282) to change the name of the 
genus Archibuteo Brehm to Triorchis Kaup, the writer has had occasion to 
investigate the generic status of this group. The two Rough-legged Hawks, 
Falco lagopus Briinnich and Falco ferrugineus Lichtenstein, have for a 
long time been generically segregated from the species of Buteo because 
they have the tarsi completely feathered in front and on the sides. Dr. 
Hartert has recently (Hand-List Brit. Birds, 1912, p. 115; Végel paléarkt. 
Fauna, Heft IX [Band II, Heft 3], October, 1914, pp. 1114, 1128-1131), 
advocated the elimination of Archibuteo as a genus because of the inter- 
mediate character of some species of Buteo. The results of our own study 
raay be worthy of brief notice in print, as they seem, much to our surprise, 
completely to justify Dr. Hartert’s position. The common Rough-legged 
Hawk of Europe, Archibuteo lagopus lagopus (Briinnich), and its North 


American subspecies, Archibuteo lagopus sanctijohannis (Gmelin) exhibit 


the extreme extent of feathering on the tarsus, which in these birds extends 
over the base of the toes. This condition, compared with that seen in 
Falco buteo Linnzeus, the type of the genus Buteo Lacépéde, would seem 
to indicate that Archibuteo is an excellent genus. Examination of other 
species of both groups shows, however, that in this character there is a 
complete chain of intermediates connecting Archibuteo lagopus with Buteo 
buteo, through Buteo augur, Buteo desertorum, Buteo leucocephalus, and 
Buteo ferox. Infact, Archibuteo ferrugineus is also somewhat intermediate 
in this respect, since the feathering on its tarsus does not cover the base 
of the toes, nor in some specimens even the lower end of the tarsus. Some 
examples of Buteo ferox have the tarsus feathered in front, even to the base 
of the toes; and Buteo leucocephalus has it covered for at least the upper 
two-thirds. Failing other characters to separate Archibuteo lagopus from 
Buteo it must be included in that group. Contrasted with Archibuteo 
lagopus lagopus and Archibuteo lagopus sancti-johannis, the American 
species Archibuteo ferrugineus looks very different, with its broad bill and 
rather long tarsus; and Mr. C. J. Maynard (Birds Eastern North Amer., 
pt. 40, 1896, p. 691) has generically separated it under the name Brewsteria, 
because of these differences, its much heavier sterno-trachialis muscle, 
and the lack of glandular ridges on the proventriculus. The broad bill 
and rather long tarsi are shared almost completely by Buteo leucocephalus 
and Buteo ferox; the glandular ridges on the proventriculus in Archibuteo 
lagopus are, Mr. A. Wetmore thinks, merely adventitious wrinkles; while 
the heavier sterno-trachialis muscle as compared with Archibuteo lagopus 
is doubtless merely a difference due to the larger size of Archibuteo ferrugt- 


es | General Notes. 421 
neus. We do not see, therefore, how Archibuteo ferrugineus can be separ- 
able, even subgenerically, from Archibuteo lagopus; or Archibuteo lagopus 
and Archibuteo ferrugineus generically from Buteo. 

The two species of Archibuteo seem, however, to constitute an excellent 
case for the employment of a subgenus, since they show structural char- 
acters connected by intermediates, which is our idea of a subgeneric group. 
Certainly we can not consistently longer consider the Rough-legged Hawks 
generically distinct. Their names herafter should, therefore, be 

Buteo lagopus lagopus (Briinnich). 
Buteo lagopus sanctijohannis (Gmelin). 
Buteo ferrugineus (Lichtenstein). 
Harry C. OBERHOLSER, Washington, D. C. 


Golden Eagle at East Moriches, N. Y.— A Golden Eagle (Aquila 
chrysaetos) visited East Moriches, Long Island, N. Y., on February 7, 1919. 
He raided a flock of hens and took one to a telegraph pole where he ate it. 
On February 10, what I believe to have been the same bird was seen by 
Mr. Henry D. Terry. I have no report of a previous visit here of this 
rare bird within the past fifty years. From memory and associated events 
it was just about fifty years ago that Jonathan Robinson shot one in 
Manorville, four miles north of this village and my father bought it and 
sent it to Fulton Market, New York City, for sale. 

The Bald Eagle is a resident here and a pair nested for many years on 
an old dead pine tree about a mile from the village.— Horace M. Raynor, 
East Moriches, N. Y. 


Arctic Three-toed Woodpecker at Southampton, Mass.— The 
article in the ‘General Notes’ of the January number of ‘The Auk’ on the 
Arctic Three-toed Woodpecker (Picoides arcticus) prompts me to record 
one observed recently near Southampton, Mass. 

Together with a companion on Lincoln’s birthday, I went to find this 
rare Woodpecker which had been reported in November and December as 
having always been found in a rather extensive patch of white pine that 
had been burned over the preceding spring. We succeeded in locating 
him after a fifteen mile automobile drive over dusty roads that usually 
at this time of year are buried under a foot or two of snow. This winter 
is remarkable also for an unusual number of Hairy Woodpeckers, of which 
we noticed nearly a dozen, with half as many Downies. My companion 
at length located the Arctic by the tapping sound characteristic of Wood- 
peckers. But the beat was not as regular as that of the above mentioned 
species and somewhat slower. 

The bird allowed us to approach to the very tree in which he was at work, 
so that an excellent observation was obtained. The sides we noted instead 
of being pure white, as in the adult spring plumage, were a dull gray color 
with small black bars. Whether this is an immature marking or winter 


422 General Notes. [7 ay 


plumage, I have yet to determine. The golden yellow crown patch was 
distinct as were the characteristic three toes. This particular stand of 
charred and dead pines is undoubtedly what is keeping him here all winter. 
Evidence of his search for the particular beetle that bores in the dead wood 
was on every side and the bark was stripped from many of the pines. 
He gave us several examples of his method of doing this; firmly secured 
to the tree by his toes and using the two prominent quill points of his black 
teil as a support, he would seize the edge of the bark with his long blunt 
bill and force head, bill, and bark down sideways until a considerable 
portion of the bark would break off. He also afforded a striking resem- 
blance to a large knot, when with head drawn far back he “ froze,”” — per- 
haps because of a nearby Hairy that had been working tree by tree nearer 
until he darted straight at Arctic trying to intimidate or dislodge him, but 
without success. Of us Arctic showed little or no fear either, for several 
vigorous kicks against the tree trunk failed to frighten him, while a stick 
thrown higher up in the same tree merely sent him to another one some 
ten or fifteen feet away where he resumed his work.. 

In Vol. XVII of ‘ The Auk’ I note a record in the eastern part of Massa- 
chusetts for January 1899. The observer concludes his remarks with the 
statement: ‘This record must be pretty far south for this species, espe- 
cially in such a mild and open winter.”” Why it is that this boreal bird was 
not driven south last year when we had one of the severest winters on record 
and chose this year instead, is one of the as yet unanswered questions per- 
taining to bird lore. The query uppermost in my mind is — Does the mild 
and open winter have anything to do with the appearance of the Arctic 
Three-toed Woodpecker along the southern border of his range?-— AARON 
C. Baac, Holyoke, Mass. 


Blue Jay Again in Jefferson Co., Colorado.— In Vol. XXXIV, No. 2 
of ‘The Auk’ I reported the occurrence of three Blue Jays (Cyanocitta 
cristata cristata) one and a half miles south of Broomfield, Colorado. These 
birds were very wild and it was impossible to get close enough to them 
to obtain a specimen. On October 27, 1918, I was more successful. On 
this date I was again startled by the ery of a Blue Jay coming from an 
apple tree beside a small patch of corn not far from our house. Securing 
my gun, I hurried to the spot and obtained the specimen, a female, which 
is before me as I write this article. She was unafraid and seemed perfectly 
at home beside this patch of corn— A. H. Feicrer, Denver, Colo. 


Song of the Canada Jay.— The note entitled “‘ The Song of the Blue 
Jay,” which was published in ‘ The Auk’ for January, 1919, interests me 
much, and causes me to wonder if it is generally known that the Canada Jay 
possesses a true song also. The following extract from my notes, dated 
May 7, 1911, may be worth publishing in this connection. 

“While walking through the woods between Long Swamp and the 


woo | General Notes. 423 


Webster Road near the rear of the farm I met the first individual of this 
species (Canada Jay) that I had ever seen. He was not at all shy and 
I observed him for some time with my opera-glasses at a distance of about 
twenty feet. I also heard his song, which was quite pleasing and somewhat 
resembled that of the Catbird, though in this instance, at least, it was not 
so loud, apparently being uttered with closed bill. Besides this he uttered 
a disagreeable note similar to one of the scolding notes of the red squirrel.” 

This observation was made in the woodland on my father’s farm, near 
Yarmouth, Nova Scotia. Although I have not infrequently observed 
Canada Jays in Nova Scotia since the date of this occurrence, I have never 
since then heard one of them utter any pleasing or musical notes, or any- 
thing which could be considered a song.— Harrison F. Lewis, Quebec, P. Q. 


Evening Grosbeak in New Jersey.— On the 1919 Washington’s Birth- 
day field trip of the Delaware Valley Ornithological Club, to New Lisbon, 
N. J., a flock of 27 Evening Grosbeaks (Hesperiphona vespertina vespertina) 
were observed in the same trees where the birds were found on February 
22,1917. This occurrence is surprising since no others have been reported 
in this vicinity during the past winter and they have apparently not been 
common in the states to the northward.— WiTtmMER STong, Academy of 
Natural Sciences, Philadelphia. 


The Pine Grosbeak (Pinicola enucleator leucura) in Northwestern 
New Jersey.— Through the kindness of Mr. Justus von Lengerke, I am 
able to record a flock of four Pine Grosbeaks seen by him at Stag Lake, 
Sussex Co., N. J., on February 9, 1919. 

The birds, two of which were adult males, were observed at a distance of 
a few feet. Through previous acquaintance with the species they were 
at once recognized as Pine Grosbeaks. 

That these birds seldom reach Sussex County is evident from the fact 
that, during a residence of many years at Stag Lake, Mr. von Lengerke 
had never before seen this species there— W. DEW. MituEr, American 
Museum of Natural History, New York City. 


Early Occurrence of the Red-breasted Nuthatch in New Jersey.— 
On July 18, 1918, I saw a Red-breasted Nuthatch (Silla canadensis) in 
the Pitch Pines bordering Lily Lake, Cape May Point, N. J., at the south- 
ernmost extremity of the state. When first seen it was some distance 
away and I supposed for the moment that I had a straggling example of 
the Brown-headed species before me, which occurs regularly in southern 
Delaware, across the bay, but upon approaching I found it to be the Red- 
breasted species. I watched it at close quarters for fifteen minutes, but 
saw no other individuals. This is much the earliest record that I have 
for southern New Jersey or the Philadelphia district— WitmpR STONE, 
Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia. 


494 General Notes. [3 a 


The Range of the Short-tailed Mountain Chickadee (Penthestes 
gambeli abbreviatus Grinnell).— The form of Penthestes gambeli recently 
described by Dr. Joseph Grinnell (Univ. Calif. Publ. Zoél., XVII, No. 17, 
May 4, 1918, p. 510) as Penthestes gambeli abbreviatus is an excellent sub- 
species. The range given by its describer is ‘‘ The higher mountains of 
central and northern California, southern Oregon, (probably this sub- 
species), and northwestern Nevada.” To this we are able so greatly to 
add from material in the Biological Survey collection, that it seems worth 
while to put on available record for the benefit of those who may have 
occasion to use the information, a statement of the geographic distribution 
of Penthestes gambeli abbreviatus, so far as now known. This subspecies 
breeds and doubtless is a permanent resident north to Thudade Lake in 
northern British Columbia; west to central British Columbia, western 
Washington, western Oregon, and central northern California; south to 
Mt. Whitney in central eastern California; and east to northeastern Cali- 
fornia, northwestern Nevada, Lardo and Dickey in central Idaho, and 
Smoky River and the vicinity of Henry House in central western Alberta.— 
Harry C. OBERHOLSER, Washington, D.C. 


Note on Audubon’s Labrador Trip.— Mr. James White, assistant 
to the chairman of the Canadian Commission of Conservation writes me 
in connection with the meeting between Audubon and Bayfield, that some 
twelve years ago he had located Capt. Bayfield’s Journals of the Surveys 
in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, in the possession of the Captain’s son in 
Vancouver, B. C. They were later presented to the Canadian Archives 
and Mr. White had the following extract copied. Opposite the first 
entry were the names of the Audubon party as follows: 

Mr. J. J. Audubon, Senior 

Mr. J. W. Audubon, junior, his son 

Mr. Thos. Lincoln, Maine 

Mr. Josh Cooledge, mate of the Ripley 

Mr. Geo. G. Shattuck, Boston medical student 

Mr. Willm. Ingall, Medical student 

Mr. Emery, Master of the Ripley 

22d June, 1833.— Light breezes 8S. E. with rain. At 3.30 A. M. Tacked 
and stood in to the E. N. E. & N. E. sounding,— At 
6 saw the land but could not make it out for some time 
on acct of the rain. At 7 perceived that it was Little 
Natashquam — several schooners at anchor inside the 
rocks made signal for a Pilot with a Gun — At 7.30 
the Master of the Shelburne (Phillips) of Liverpool near 
Halhfax came onboard and took us in for which I paid 
him 20s Cur: Found 6 american Schooners belonging 
to East Port in the State of Main all belonging to one 
person who is here with them. We also found another 
American Schooner here the Ripley of Eastport employed 


Vol. oe | 
1919 


23d June, 1833. 


24th June, 1883. 


General Notes. 425 


in a very difft way having Mr. Audobon onboard the 
Naturalist with several young men two of them Medical 
students of Boston. these take the departments of 
Botany &c., &c. in short they collect everything. But 
Mr. Audubon has come principally tor the purpose of 
studying the habits of the water Fowl with which the 
coast of Labrador abounds and to make drawings of 
them for his splendid work upon the Birds of America. 
He sent his card onbd with a polite note & I received 
him onboard and we found him a very superior person 
indeed. It is probable we shall meet often as he pro- 
ceeds along the coast which we are going to survey. 
Rain all the remainder of the day. 

Light breezes S. S. W. and fogg* wear in the early part 
of the day but cleared before noon. Sent Mr. Bowen 
to Survey the small harbour &e. Obs? for Latitude. 
returned Mr. Audobon’s visit and was delighted with 
his drawings, the Birds being represented of the same 
size as when alive, and most beautifully painted — 
P. M. obs? for Time, & difft Longitude — also for trace 
bearing, Variation & angles for the survey of this small 
anchorage. 

At Night the wind hauled more towards the 8. E. 
with fog & drizling rain. 

In walking over the Islets & rocks of the mainland 

today we found large masses of snow remaining in every 
part.— Nevertheless 10 or 12 species of Flowers were 
seen .— 
Light breezes S. W. with fog and clouds wear. P. M. 
it cleared and I obs4 for Time and rates. Mr. Bowen 
finished the survey of the harbour and adjacent rocks— 
Mr. Audubon dined with us onb?¢ the Gulnare. 

Three hundred vessels are said by the owner of the 
American schooners to be employed in the Fisheries 
upon this coast averaging 75 Tons*& manned by 50 men 
to each six vessels equal to 2,500 men. of these one 
half are French, one forth British, and the rest American. 
Each Vessel takes away one with another about 1500 
Quintal of Cod Fish of 112 Ibs. pr Quintal. The Fish 
average about 4 pounds in weight being small on this 
coast. We heard from the Americans about the Eggers 
today as a set of people whom we now for the first time 
heard spoken of collectively as a body. We had pre- 
viously no idea of the extent of the ‘ Egging business ”’ 
as our informant termed it. It appears that in some 
seasons 20 small schooners or shallops, of from 20 to 30 


426 


21st July, 1883.— 


General Notes. [x ae 


Tons, load with eggs from this coast. Halifax is the 
principal market for them where they at times fetch a 
much higher price than Hen’s eggs. They are stowed 
in the hold in bulk and keep for several weeks without 
any preparation. These men the Eggers combine to- 
gether and form a strong company — they suffer no one 
to interfere with their business driving away the fisher- 
men or anyone else that attempts to collect Eggs near 
where they happen to be. Might makes right with them 
it is clear — they have arms and are said by the Fisher- 
men not to be very scrupulous in using them. As soon 
as they have filled one vessel with eggs they send her to 
market others follow in succession so that the market 
is always supplied but never overstocked. One vessel 
of 25 tons is said to have cleared 200 pounds by this 
“ Weoing Business ”’ in a favorable season. 

Strong breezes S. W. and Squells of wind & rain occasion- 
ally. We started early as usual and at } past 8 A. M. 
arrived at Grand Mecattina point and proceeded to the 
third Islet off it to the S. E.w4. Mr. Bowen arrived soon 
after and we remained on the island ’till Noon and obs4 
for Latitude through the fog which came on at 10 A. M. 
with a very fresh Gale from the 8. W. 

Just as we arrived the Ripley Mr. Audubon’s Schooner 
hauled in round the islands intending to anchor in Grand 
Mecattina harbour but not knowing the place they ran 
into Portage Bay instead. 

At 1 P. M. Mr. Bowen & I ran in for shelter under 
double reefed sails and were received with the greatest 
kindness by Mr. Audubon, his Son Mr. Audubon junior 
the other gentlemen of the party and the Captain of the 
Ripley Mr. Emery. Mr. Audubon kindly invited us to 
dine and we passed a very pleasant afternoon with him & 
his party and encamped in the evening in the same corner. 

Mr. A —’s kindness did not stop here understanding 
that we were in danger of being short of provisions before 
we could complete the Survey back to the Gulnare he 
offered me every assistance in his power and I accepted 
of a Ham and some potatoes which last were kindly 
offered by Mr. Emery. I purchased from the latter 
three days allowance of Bread and Beef for the party 
which set me quite at ease on the score of provisions. 
The S. W. Gale and Fog continued to night and then we 
had rain in addition Mr. Audubon and his party came 
onshore to see us in our Tents in the evening. 

— Cuares W. TownsEnp, Boston, Mass. 


Tio General Notes. ADT 


Destruction of Sea Birds in Labrador.— The following extract 
from a letter received from Dr. Robert T. Morris of New York City, is 
deserving of wide publicity and is therefore placed before the readers of 
‘The Auk.’ 

“¢ Dear Dr. Townsend, 

Your treatment of the subject of conservation in Labrador in the book, 
“Tn Audubon’s Labrador,” which I have read with great interest, meets 
with my approval or more than that. On my trips to the Gulf Coast of 
Labrador and on the eastern coast as far north as Hamilton Inlet I observed 
that the Newfoundland codfishermen were in the habit of raiding all of 
the islands and adjacent mainlands on Sunday and making away with the 
eggs and the young of all of the seabirds. Some of the islands were wholly 
deserted so far as bird life was concerned and your Captain Joncas told me 
that in addition to the Newfoundland fishermen a number of men were 
engaged in the business of egging and that the eggs were preserved in brine 
and sold to the crews of various vessels. He said that the egg hunt was 
continued until such a late date in the season that the young birds 
which were finally hatched were not strong enough to withstand the autumn 
storms and he had seen thousands of young birds thrown up on the beaches. 
When I have been on the coast the Newfoundland fishermen not only 
destroyed young birds and the eggs but they shot many of the mother birds 
for sport, leaving them where they fell on the ground if they were of species 
not good to eat. 

The waste of food fish also is very great along the Labrador coast. 
Small cod and hake which are not desired by the fishermen are often 
smothered in traps or killed when the traps are emptied and I have seen 
them floating for miles on the surface when the trappers were at work. 
' The cod trappers catch a great many adult salmon by setting their nets 
in the channels when the salmon first make their way toward the rivers. 
This is illegal but is winked at by the officials. A remarkable waste of 
salmon occurs in September when the herring nets are used near the coast. 
This is the time of year when the smelts are descending from the rivers 
and putting out to sea. They are captured in quantities in the herring 
nets.”” — CuHarLtis W. TOWNSEND, Boston, Mass. 


Specific Names in the Nominative Case.— It is a satisfaction to 
receive corroboration of the Hirundo erythrogaster ruling from Dr. Dwight, 
with his most timely citation of the International Code definition of the 
sort of words that may be used as specific names (see Auk, XXXVI, 1919, 
p. 117). It is curious, however, that he should reverse his stand when it 
comes to the subspecific name salicarius. In this connection I have again 
appealed to my senior colleague, Professor W. A. Merrill, head of the Latin 
department of the University of California. Professor Merrill assures me 
that although the word salicarius is not to be found in any Latin diction- 
ary, it is ‘‘in good Latin form” and may be considered either as a noun, 
meaning ‘‘ something which has to-do with a willow tree,” or as an adjec- 


Auk 
428 General Notes. [3 aly 


tive, meaning “ pertaining to a willow tree.” A parallel is afforded in the 
word legionarius, originally an adjective but which came to be used as a 
noun—a legionary, that is, a soldier of a legion. A great number of similar 
nominatives are listed by Professor Merrill in a special paper of his (Univ. 
Calif. Publ. Class. Phil., vol. 2, 1910, pp. 57-65). 

It is true that Professor Merrill also says that the combination Guiraca 
cerulea salicarius is in poor taste as regards its “‘ Latinity ’’; that is, the 
Latins would not have written it that way. This consideration is, of 
course, immaterial in nomenclatural questions, which questions are now 
settled by arbitrarily formulated rules, one of which prescribed retention of 
words of this category unchanged in construction from the form in which 
they were first proposed. 

As originally proposed, the word salicarius was a noun, and it must 
retain its own gender, masculine, irrespective of the genus name with which 
it is associated; it is, in truth, a ‘‘ substantive in the nominative in apposi- 
tion with the generic name.’’ It would thus appear that Guiraca cerulea 
salicarius is, from the nomenclatural standpoint, a perfectly tenable com- 
bination for the California Blue Grosbeak, and must be kept inviolate — 
J. GRINNELL, Museum of Vertebrate Zoélogy, Berkeley, California. 


Editions of Baird, Cassin and Lawrence’s ‘ Birds of North Amer- 
ica.’ — This well known work appeared first in 1858 as Volume IX of the 
‘Pacific Railroad Surveys’ and constitutes a complete summary of the 
ornithology of the various expeditions as well as of the Mexican Boundary 
Survey. The separate report on the ornithology of the last as well as of 
several of the Pacific Railroad expeditions, did not appear until a year or 
two after Volume IX, but their contents are included in it. While no 
plates accompanied Volume IX there were thirty-three colored plates pub- 
lished along with the reports of the various surveys and twenty-five with 
the Mexican Boundary report. 

In 1860 Volume IX appeared under a new title, ‘The Birds of North 
America’ with the imprint, Philadelphia, J. B. Lippincott & Co. The 
text is exactly the same from p. xvii of the introductory portion to the end 
of the volume and apparently printed from the same plates as the original. 
The four pages of ‘‘ Preface’? are reprinted in three pages, apparently 
without change of wording but in smaller type, the ‘‘ Contents” are re- 
printed and slightly altered, and a page of ‘‘ Advertisement ” is added as 
well as a different title page. 

An atlas of one hundred colored plates accompanied this work. There 
is a title page identical with that of the text except for the substitution of 
“ Plates ”’ for “ Text ”’; pages i-ii contain a preface; pp. ili-vill, “ Expla- 
nation of Plates”; and ix-xi ‘‘ Systematic List of Illustrations.” 

Of the thirty-three plates of the various survey volumes, thirty-one 
appear in this atlas, nearly all of them being retouched and some of them 
redrawn but all these closely resembling the originals, names have been 


vol gio. wal General Notes. 429 
added to all of them, which were originally lacking, and the plate numbers 
and references at the top are changed or reéngraved. In some cases the 
plates of the original reports are superior to those in the Atlas while in 
others the latter are the better impressions. The coloring of the Atlas 
plates is nearly always better done. Curiously enough the numbers in the 
upper right hand corner of the original plates of the separate surveys are 
the numbers of their position in the Atlas and have no reference to their 
position in the reports. Two of the original plates, that of the Horned 
Lark and Mountain Bluebird (Report on the 38th.; 39th., and 41st. 
Parallels; plates XXXII and XXXYV) do not appear in the Atlas, their 


places being taken by new plates of the Florida Grackle and Red-naped 


Sapsucker respectively. They are however, Dr. Richmond tells me, bound 
up in Prof. Baird’s copy at the U. 8. National Museum, in addition to the 
substituted plates, the Bluebird by the way being uncolored; but this was 
undoubtedly done for his personal convenience. 

Of the twenty-five plates of the Mexican Boundary Report twenty-four 
appear in the Atlas somewhat retouched and sometimes with the addition 
of a landscape background lacking in the original. They are numbered 
I-XXIV as in the original report. Plate XXV however, is replaced by a 
new plate (LXIII) consisting of a reduced representation of the Black- 
bellied Tree Duck which occupied the whole plate in the original, and a 
figure of the Fulvous Tree Duck in addition. The remaining thirty-seven 
plates appear for the first time in the Atlas. 

The above facts are not new, except, perhaps, the exact collation of the 
plates with those of the original reports, and are given in Coues’ Bibliog- 
raphy and doubtless elsewhere, as well as in the preface to the ‘ Birds of 
North America’ itself. Recently, however, my attention has been called 
to some other facts about the work which I do not find mentioned in any 
bibliography. I have before me a copy of the Atlas, bearing the imprint 
of D., Appleton & Co., New York, 1860; which shows that Lippincott 
was not the only publisher who handled the work. This edition of the 
Atlas seems to be exactly like the Philadelphia imprint, and doubtless the 
text, which 1 have not seen, is identical. There is, however, another edi- 
tion which is decidedly different and which bears the imprint; Salem: 
Naturalist’s Book Agency, 1870; with Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & 
Co., 1860, above it in smaller type. 

The Atlas of this edition is inferior to that of 1860. Many of the plates 
have been again retouched and some redrawn often in a decidedly crude 
fashion, while one plate, No. XIV Buteo calurus, is entirely different, the 
bird facing the other way. In a large number of these plates moreover, 
the names are lacking, while in the redrawn ones there is no border line 
and no lettering whatever except the plate number. 

The coloring of the Atlas of 1860 is far better done than the plates of 
either the original reports or those of the 1870 edition while the coloration 
of a number of the figures differs materially in all three, the Sandwich Spar- 


430 General Notes. [nut 


row being pinkish brown in one case and deep olive green in another. 
There seems to be no record of the names of the artists who were respon- 
sible for these plates— Witmer Stonr, Academy of Natural Sciences, 
Philadelphia. 


Observations on the Shifting Range, Migration and Economic 
Value of the Bobolink.— The inclusion of the Bobolink among the birds 
protected by the recently consummated treaty with Canada for the pro- 
tection of migratory birds, resulted in an immediate demand for an inves- 
tigation of its present-day economic status, which was carried on in the 
states from New Jersey south to Florida, inclusive, in August to October, 
1918. A few points were brought forcibly to the writer’s attention which 
perhaps are not wholly realized by ornithologists in general. First, as 
to the shifting of breeding grounds by the Bobolink, for to my mind that 
is what is occurring. The trend of the bird’s breeding range to the north- 
west is unmistakable; for instance in the first edition of the A. O. U. 
Check-List, the Western limit of the breeding range wag given as the Great 
Plains; in the second edition, 1895, as Nevada, Idaho and Alberta, and 
in the third edition, 1910, as British Columbia. Now unless there has 
been a considerable increase in the numbers of the species, the population 
of eastern breeding grounds must have fallen off, and this latter condition 
is one of which New England observers in particular complain. Rice 
growers in the South who have the best opportunity of judging the abun- 
dance of the species contend that the bird is less numerous than formerly. 
Putting these two things together, a vastly extended range and no increase, 
possibly a decrease in number of individuals, diminution of the Bobolink 
population somewhere is inevitable. This condition has actually been 
observed in the northeastern states, completing the cycle of evidence that 
a shift in range has occurred. 

The persistence of birds in maintaining migration routes is particularly 
exemplified by the Bobolink. After extending its range westward, over 
hundreds of miles and across two mountain systems, the species with insig- 
nificant exceptions returns to the Atlantic Coast before turning to the south. 
The main fall migration path seems to converge into a funnel not far south 
of the breeding range through which the birds pour in a narrow stream 
along the coast of southern North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, 
expanding again so as to cover the whole breadth of peninsular Florida. 
Even farther north, before this migration stream is definitely formed, the 
birds are much more abundant near the coast than inland as in the wild 
rice marshes on tidewater from New Jersey to Virginia. Not only do the 
vast majority of Bobolinks seek a narrow track along the Atlantic seaboard 
for their southward migration, but they reach all parts of it almost simul- 
taneously. Florida seems to form an exception to this statement, but in 
Georgia and South Carolina both the earliest dates (July 13-19) of fall 
migration and the bulk arrivals (August 15-21) are as-early as those for 
the vicinity of Philadelphia. At a plantation on Goose Creek, South Caro- 


- 


i. 


yor ie NE General Notes. A31 


lina, where ricebirds are expected in large numbers about August 21, they 
arrived this year August 1. 

The migration of the Bobolink is a long drawn out process. It begins 
early in July, and whilst at its height in the United States from the middle 
of August to that of September, the species has been known to arrive in 
numbers in northern South America, early in September, a date prior to the 
time great damage is still being done by large flocks in the United States. 
By the middle of October, often earlier, cold weather has driven the birds 
out of all of the United States but Florida; there Bobolinks linger and, it 
is claimed by some, winter. 

As a result of this straggling habit of migration no large proportion of 
the species is present in a given area at one time. It is fortunate that this 
is true, for the Ricebird is as destructive as ever where conditions permit. 
War prices stimulated the once decadent rice industry of the South Atlantic 
States and the acreage this yeer probably is in excess of 6000. The destruc- 
tion of rice by Ricebirds must average about 25%, and the money loss for 
rice alone, not including expense incurred in attempts to protect the crop, 
probably in the neighborhood of $150,000. 

Were the loss much less it would be a mistake to protect the Bobolink, 
since its depredations fall so heavily upon individual planters whose main 
money crop is rice. Not only is rice damaged in the fall, but sprouted rice 
and oats and wheat in the milk suffer almost as heavily from depredations 
of the birds on their spring migration. From personal observation I 
regard the Bobolink as the most exasperating bird pest of the United States. 
Overwhelming flocks of them (I have seen 25,000 to 30,000 on 60 acres of 
rice) pitch in the ricefields from which it is almost impossible to dislodge 
them. It by great effort the flocks are put on the wing, they simply wheel 
and in a few moments are settled upon the rice again. When this cereal 
is in the milk the birds keep a steady stream of rice milk running through 
them. In the intestines it seems hardly altered from the state in which 
it is swallowed, and certainly only a small proportion of its nutriment is 
used. The Ricebirds not only gorge themselves by day but even continue 
their feeding on moonlight nights. At length they become so fat and lazy 
as hardly to be dislodged from the rice by any means. In many fields, 
half of the rice is destroyed, and in some all of it, or at least so much that 
harvesting is unprofitable. Fancy yourself a rice planter, seeing the 
promised results of your investment and labor melting away before the 
onslaught of these pests, and you may well understand why the Bobolink’s 
song, however attractive, and its insectivorous habits in its breeding range, 
seem trivial reasons for protection of so destructive a species. 

As a consequence of these investigations an order has been issued by the 
U. S. Department of Agriculture, permitting the killing of the birds, in 


_ Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland and the District of 


Columbia from September 1 to October 30 inclusive, and in the states 
from Virginia to Florida from August 16 to November 15, but no birds 
may be sold or shipped for purpose of sale-— W. L. McATEE. 


lpate 


432 Recent Literature. July 


RECENT LITERATURE. 


‘A Practical Handbook of British Birds.’— So rapidly does ornitho- 
logical knowledge increase that new books upon the birds of any country 
seem to be always in order. Even in England with its wealth of orni- 
thological literature there seems to be a need for a new general work on the 
bird life, and this being the case none are better able to produce the desired 
volume than the authors who are associated in the present undertaking.! 

From the introductory note we learn that the work is to consist of keys 
to the species, subspecies and higher groups; full descriptions prepared on 
a uniform plan and covering all the plumages and molts, the resources of 
Lord Rothschild’s collections and those of the British Museum having 
been drawn upon, in this connection. Field characters are also to be 
described as well as breeding habits, food, geographic distribution and 
migration; the various authors dealing with the subjects upon which they 
are authorities. 

The present part deals with the Corvide, Sturnide, Oriolide and part 
of the Fringillide. The nomenclature follows that of the ‘Hand List’ 
for which several of the authors are responsible, and there are references 
to the original description of each species as well as to several of the 
standard works on British birds. Then follows a very complete descrip- 
tion with a short paragraph giving the names and characters of the allied 
continental races, but where two races occur in the British Isles they are 
both treated at length under separate headings. Under breeding habits 
are given a brief description of the nest and eggs, with measurements; a 
statement of the breeding season, length of incubation, fledgling period, etc. 
The food is briefly summarized and the character and extent of the migra- 
tory movement is given, with average and extreme dates. The definite- 
ness and compactness of the whole treatment are admirable and only those 
who have attempted to collect such information about even our commonest 
birds can appreciate the difficulty and the labor that are involved. In 
spite of the vast amount of published matter relating to American birds 
we doubt if such a compilation on the North American avifauna would be 
possible today. Let any one make the attempt regarding the birds of his 
own neighborhood and he will be surprised at the many points about which 
information is lacking. 

Part I, the editor tells us, was printed before the war, but its issue was 
suspended, so that certain additions are necessary to bring it up to date. 


1A Practical Handbook of British Birds. Edited by H. F. Witherby, F. Z. S., M. B. 
O. U., Editor of British Birds (Mag.) Authors of the Various Sections; Ernst Hartert, Ph. D- 
M. B. O. U., Annie C. Jackson, H. M. B. O. U., Rev. F. R. C. Jourdain, M. A., M. B. O. 
U., C. Oldham, F. Z. S., M. B. O. U., Norman F. Ticehurst, M. A., F. R. C.S., M. B. O. 
U., and the Editor. Illustrated with Colored Plates and Numerous Text Figures. London, 
Witherby & Co., High Holborn, W. C.1I. In Eighteen Parts. Part I (pp. 1-64). March 
38,1919. Price 4s. net per part. 


<4 


no | Recent Literature. 433 


The Shetland Starling is added at the end of the introductory note and 
other emendations are made on the cover, all of which will be properly 
incorporated in an appendix in the last part of the work. 

Illustrations are numerous but are intended, as is explained, solely as 
an aid to identification. They are mainly line cuts of heads, bills and feet, 
etc., and there is one excellent colored plate of the “ juvenile’ plumages 
of various finches. 

We shall look forward with interest to the succeeding parts of this 
important work which should easily become the authoritative book of 
reference upon the British avifauna.— W. 8S. 


Harris’s ‘Birds of the Kansas City Region.’ — Mr. Harry Harris, 
already well known to the readers of ‘The Auk’ through his historical 
articles on Auduboniana, Harris’s Sparrow, etc., has prepared an admirable 
annotated list of the birds of the vicinity of Kansas City, Mo.,! where he 
has resided for many years. The list treats mainly of Jackson County, 
Mo., but includes also Clay and Platte Counties in that state as well as 
Johnson County, Kansas and some notes from other adjacent territory. 

Under each species is given a brief general statement of the character of 
its occurrence and then follows an account of its distribution, migration, 
etc., and some information upon habits, running sometimes to half a page or 
even more. At the end is a list of species arranged according to time of 
occurrence, with migrants in order of their arrival in the spring; and also 
an excellent bibliography. 

Mr. Harris’s writings are characterized by their high literary quality and 
great care in editing, and we only wish that all writers would follow his 
example in these respects. 

The paper is a welcome contribution to the ornithology of a region that 
has not received much detailed attention in the past and it should do much 
to stimulate bird study throughout the Kansas City region. As a com- 
position and a piece of printing it may well be taken as a model by those 
contemplating similar lists. 

There is one point which calls for comment and that is the quotation of 
the names given in the ‘ Lists of Proposed Changes in the A. O. U. Check- 
List ’’ which are published each year in ‘ The Auk,’ although the author 
is to be commended for giving them only as alternates to the names in the 
last edition of the ‘ Check-List.’ Curiously enough he seems to have 
entirely misunderstood these lists and quotes the names as “‘ proposed ”’ 
at the dates on which the lists were published. They are simply changes 
“ proposed ”’ by various writers at various times prior to the issue of the 
list, but usually during the previous year, and are brought together simply 
for the convenience of the A. O. U. Committee and others who wish to 


1 Birds of the Kansas City Region, Harry Harris. Transactions of the Academy of 
Science of St. Louis. Vol. XXIII, No.8., pp. 219-371. Issued February 27,1919. With 
an introduction (pp. 213-218) by Ralph Hoffmann. 


434 Recent Literature. [3 ay 


investigate problems of nomenclature. Some of them will probably be 
adopted and many of them rejected. Dr. Oberholser does not “‘ propose ” 
them for adoption but is simply listing them. In the reviewer’s opinion we 
should adopt in our lists of North American birds the nomenclature of the 
A. O. U. ‘Check-List’ until a new edition appears, the names we use then 
have a meaning to those who constitute the great majority of our readers, 
ctherwise they do not. This is, however, an explanation and not a criti- 
cism, as Mr. Harris has properly and consistently used the A. O. U. ‘ Check- 
List’ names as his main headings.— W. S. 


Baileys’ ‘ Wild Animals of Glacier National Park.’ — This excellent 
publication 1 of the National Park Service gives us an authoritative account 
of the birds and mammals of one of the most interesting of the National 
Parks. Mr. Bailey, Chief Field Naturalist of the Biological Survey, has 
prepared a most interesting account of the mammals, treating of their habits 
and distribution, largely from his own extensive experience. The bird 
portion by Mrs. Bailey, the well known author of the ‘ Handbook of the 
Birds of the Western United States,’ is equally well done and places the 
visitor to the park in possession of just the information that he will desire 
in order to add to the interest of his trip and to place him in the position 
of knowing which of his observations may be worthy of permanent record. 
The keys for identification and the numerous half-tone illustrations from the 
authors’ ‘ Handbook’ and the publications of the U. 8. Biological Survey, 
add greatly to the practical value of the report as well as to its attractiveness. 
The work, however, is much more than an ornithological guidebook, for 
Mrs. Bailey has consulted all the literature on the region as well as unpub- 
lished data and has thus compiled a report that is a valuable contribution 
to American ornithological literature, reminding one in many respects of 
the early faunal reports of the Biological Survey published under the direc- 
tion of her brother, Dr. C. Hart Merriam. 

We only hope that the success of this publication may warrant the 
Government in preparing similar reports upon the fauna of the other 
National Parks for many of which, curiously enough, we have scarcely any 
ornithological publications. Such a report as this on the mammals and 
birds of the Grand Cafion or the Yosemite would be a most welcome vol- 
ume.— W.S. 


Moseley’s ‘Trees, Stars and Birds.’ — This novel little book * has 


1 Wild Animals of Glacier National Park. The Mammals, with Notes on Physiography 
and Life Zones. By Vernon Bailey. The Birds, by Florence Merriam Bailey. Dept. of the 
Interior, National Park Service, Washington. 1918. Government Printing Office. 8vo, 
pp. 1-210, numerous illustrations. Price 50 cents, apply Supt. Documents, Govt. Print- 
ing Office. ‘ 

2 Trees, Stars and Birds. A Book of Outdoor Science by Edwin Lincoln Moseley, 
A. M. . Mlustrated in colors from paintings by Louis Agassiz Fuertes and with photographs 
and drawings. World Book Company, Yonkers-on-Hudson, New York, 1919, pp. i-viii + 
1-404, + i-xvi, over 300 illustrations. Price, $1.40. 


get Pao | Recent Literature. 435 


been prepared by Prof. Moseley as a school field and text book, but will 


prove of much service to many other classes of field students. The section 
on trees is especially suitable for autumn use, that on stars for winter and 
the bird chapters for spring, the whole designed to encourage students to 
observe and think for themselves. The plan is well conceived and well 
carried out, with many practical suggestions, pertinent questions and help- 
ful lists of reference works. Better than all, in a work of this sort, each 
section has been submitted to a number of competent critics who have read 
the text and offered suggestions. 

Taking up the section devoted to birds, we start with some practical 
suggestions for bird study in the field and then, beginning with the Thrushes, 
the various groups are considered in systematic order, while chapters on 
migration, classification, attracting birds, etc., are interspersed as we pro- 
ceed. The work treats almost entirely of the birds of the Northern and 
Eastern States, and the extralimital species which are mentioned here and 
there have not always been wisely selected. The Russet-backed Thrush, 
the merest variety of our Olive-back, is referred to but no mention is made 
of the very distinct Varied Thrush, and again there is mention of the 
Florida Wren which only a specialist would recognize as in any way differ- 
ent from the Carolina Wren, while the Gnatcatcher is omitted altogether. 
It would we think have been better to have adhered rigidly to a definite 
geographic area. The same criticism also extends to the colored illustra- 
tions. There seems to be no excuse for introducing such species as the 
California Jay and Black-headed Grosbeak in a work where the other 
typical western birds are omitted, while worse yet is the labelling of the 
picture of the Bronzed Grackle, ‘“‘ Purple Grackle ”’ and that of the Prairie 
Horned Lark,” ‘‘ Horned Lark.’? With such a wealth of admirable illus- 
trations, too, it is hard to understand why such a wretchedly crude cut as 
that of the Summer Tanager on its nest should have been included. How- 
ever, these are but minor points in an admirable book which cannot be too 
widely introduced into the schools of the east and which could well serve 
as a model for a similar work on western birds. Our country is too large 
to attempt to make one text book cover its entire area. The colored plates 
are mainly those published some years ago by the U. 8. Biological Survey 
in the bulletin ‘ Fifty Common Birds of Farm and Orchard’ and are 
admirably printed.— W. S. 


Miss Ball’s ‘A Year With the Birds.’ — Still another popular bird 
book ! which has appeared recently is Miss Ball’s ‘ A Year With the Birds ”’ 
consisting of a collection of the best poems which have been written about 
birds together with a number of original verses by the author treating of 
the other familiar species. These embody the characters of the various 


1A Year With the Birds, by Alice E. Ball, Illustrated by Robert Bruce Horsfall. 57 
Colored Plates. Dodd, Mead and Company, New York City, 1918, 8vo. pp. 1-191. 
$3.00. 


436 Recent Literature. [3 ne 


birds to a remarkable degree and the songs and call notes are usually 
brought into the verse in a very clever manner. Poems are often remem- 
bered where prose is forgotten and are moreover particularly attractive 
to many persons, especially children, so that Miss Ball’s book will carry 
the message of bird study to many who would probably not otherwise 
receive it. 

The various species are arranged in the order of spring arrival beginning 
with the residents and winter visitants, while tables of arrival and depar- 
ture dates are interspersed. The numerous colored plates make the work 
an attractive picture book. Many of these are from the leaflets of the 
National Association of Audubon Societies, and are referred to in the 
preface as “ Audubon plates’? —a rather confusing term — while the 
rest are drawn by Mr. Bruce Horsfall especially for this work. We trust 
that Miss Ball’s work will meet with the appreciation that it deserves.— 
W. S. 


Gilmore’s ‘Birds of Field, Forest and Park.’ — This attractively 
gotten-up book ! is intended to give the would-be nature student an intimate 
knowledge of our wild bird life. It is distinctly popular in character and 
covers the birds of the eastern United States as observed by the author at 
his home in Maine, as well as in New York, New Jersey and “‘ in the South- 
ern States.”” While usually careful to mention localities the writer occa- 
sionally forgets to tell us to which region his observations pertain, an 
important matter in a work of such wide scope. 

Mr. Gilmore is an entertaining writer and a good observer and his 
accounts of the habits of the birds he has personally observed are well done 
and full of interest, and especially attractive are the chapters entitled 
“In the Orchard ”’ and ‘“‘ The Wilderness in June ”’ where the attempt at 
systematic arrangement of the subject matter is abandoned and he writes 
of nature as he finds her. 

There is always a field for nature books which stimulate the interest ot 
the reader and the main text of Mr. Gilmore’s book will give much pleasure 
and information to a wide circle of readers. 

Unfortunately where he has had occasion to compile his information and 
to write upon the wider problems of ornithology his results have not been 
so happy — indeed the first two chapters, being largely of this character, 
could, it seems tous, have been omitted with advantage in a work of this 
kind. It is here that we find a number of unfortunate statements. Young 
Grackles, for instance, do not have ‘ spotted coats,” nor does the young 
male bird in species in which the sexes differ in color, ‘‘ resemble the father, 
and the young female the mother;’”’ while we cannot agree that in the 


1 Birds of Field, Forest and Park, By Albert Field Gilmore, with a Foreword by T. 
Gilbert Pearson, Secretary of The National Association of Audubon Societies, with Ilus- 
trations by R. Bruce Horsfall and Louis Fuertes. The Page Company. Boston, MDCCC- 
XIX, 8vo., pp. i-xii+1-318, numerous half-tone and several colored plates. $2.50 net. 


foes | Recent Literature. 437 
Sparrow family ‘ there is little or no difference in the colors of the male 
and female,” the Rose-breasted Grosbeak, Blue Grosbeak, Indigo Bunting 
and Nonpareil being familiar examples to the contrary. Perching birds, 
the author tells us, have “short legs with slender toes having many joints, 
the better to cling to the perch,” but he will find that the other groups with 
which he contrasts them have just as many “‘ joints,” birds being remark- 
ably constant in this respect and the exceptions few. Again we are told 
that in the autumn the gay suits of the males of many species ‘ are 
doffed and sober colored coats better adapted for travel are put on.” Had 
the author paused to think he must have realized that these very birds 
had traveled successfully in their brilliant spring garb on the northward 
flight and he would have sought some other reason for the change. There 
is throughout, a misleading use of the word ‘ variety” for ‘“‘ species.” 
These terms have distinct meanings in natural history and such careless 
usage tends to bewilder the reader. The author’s idea of what is meant 
by classification is decidedly hazy, since he states that the classification 
of the A. O. U. is adopted, but apart from the fact that the members of 
some of the larger groups like the Sparrows and Woodpeckers are arranged 
together there is no attempt at classification whatever. 

These and other misstatements can easily be corrected in another edition 
but it is a great pity that the book was not placed in the hands of some 
competent critic before publication, as was done in the case of Mr. Moseley’s 
little work. Mr. Pearson’s foreword is well enough as an exposition of the 
importance of bird study but it is obvious that he was not given the oppor- 
tunity of reading the manuscript. The illustrations are in part from the 
leaflets of the National Association of Audubon Societies while others 
are early efforts of Mr. Fuertes which appeared originally in ‘ Citizen Bird ’ 
and elsewhere.— W. S. 


Stephens on the Birds of San Diego County, California.— This 
well printed list ! covers 320 species and subspecies which the author has 
established as having occurred in the county. The annotations are brief 
and describe the general nature of the bird’s occurrence with data for rare 
captures, while under the family headings are given some mention of the 
habits of the species. Mr. Stephens is a well known authority on the birds 
of the region of which he writes and his list is an important addition to the 
literature of California ornithology. By a slip of the compositor we notice 
that the Nevada Cowbird appears in the Corvide instead of with its allies 
in the Icteride.— W. 8. | 

Swarth on New Subspecies of Passerella iliaca.— An exhaustive 
study of the Californian Fox Sparrows leads Mr. Swarth to separate 2 


1 An Annotated List of the Birds of San Diego County, California. By Frank Stephens. 
Transactions San Diego Society of Natural History, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 142-180. February 
15, 1919. ; 

2 Three New Species of Passerellailiaca. By H.S.Swarth. Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash., Vol. 
31, pp. 161-164. December 30, 1918. 


A388 Recent Literature. [7 ae 


three more forms making sixteen in all which he now recognizes and which 
occur at one time of the year or another within the state. The “ thick- 
billed Sparrow ” of the Sierra Nevada proves to be different from P. 7. 
megarhynca and is therefore named maripose (p. 161), type from Yosemite 
Park. The breeding locality of the true megarhynca is unknown, the 
specimens being all winter examples from southern California. The 
Warner Mountain bird is named fulva (p. 162) and that breeding in the 
White Mountains, canescens (p. 163).— W. 8. 


Annual Report of the State Ornithologist of Massachusetts.— 
Mr. E. H. Forbush’s last report ! contains some novel features besides the 
usual account of activities in the interest of bird protection. There is a 
list of collections of mounted birds and skins in Massachusetts with the 
hours and conditions under which they may be consulted, a most valuable 
piece of information. These collections number no less than forty-eight. 

A census of the Heath Hens on Martha’s Vineyard showed 155 birds 
present, an increase of forty per cent over the year before, while a number 
of interesting photographs of this bird in its mating dance form a frontis- 
piece to the report. Mr. Forbush has also issued an excellent circular on 
“ Food, Feeding and Drinking Appliances and Nesting Materials to Attract 
Birds” 2 which contains more information in a small space and conveniently 
arranged than any similar publication that we recall. 


Noble on the Birds of Newfoundland.*— Mr. Noble spent a portion 
of the summer of 1915 collecting specimens in Newfoundland in the interests 
of the Museum of Comparative Zoélogy and presents notes on 61 species. 
Special permission is required to collect in Newfoundland and a definite 
limit placed on the number of specimens of each species secured. 

Mr. Noble ascertained that Newfoundland was evidently a region in 
which a dark coloration was beginning to develop in nesting species and 
he endorses the various recently described races from this country, but 
regards Howe’s Hylocichla fuscescens fuliginosa as indistinguishable from 
the western salicicola. 

An analysis of the avifauna shows ‘thirteen species in Newfoundland 
which are unknown in Labrador, and twenty which occur in Labrador but 
not in Newfoundland, while six others are common in Newfoundland and 
rare in Labrador.— W. S&S. 


Chubb on New South American Birds.*— In the January number of 


1 Eleventh Annual Report of the State Ornithologist. By Edward Howe Forbush. For 
the Year 1918. From the Annual Report of the State Department of Agriculture. Decem- 
ber 20, 1918, pp. 1-21. 

2 Circular 2, Mass. State Department of Agriculture, pp. 1-31, September, 1918. 

3’ Notes on the Avifauna of Newfoundland. Bull. Mus. Comp. Zo6l. LXII, No. 14, 
pp. 543-568. 

4 Notes on Collections of Birds in the British Museum, from Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, and 
Argentina. Part I. Tinamide — Rallide. By Charles Chubb. The Ibis, January, 
1919, pp. 1-55. 


| 
' 
| 
“4 
| 
| 
| 


a | Recent Literature. 439 


‘The Auk,’ mention of the new species described in this paper was made 
in noticing the number of ‘ The Ibis’ in which it appeared. An examina- 
tion of the paper in detail is somewhat disappointing and exhibits an ele- 
ment of carelessness that is quite unexpected when we consider the author 
.and his opportunities. It is regrettable in the first place that Mr. Chubb 
has seen fit to consider such a wide extent of country in one paper. It is 
almost impossible to keep in mind the details of distribution and the 
literature of the subject unless we consider one region at a time. In this 
way too, we learn better what are the probable areas in which differentia- 
tion may be expected. 

In this paper, although the fact is not indicated in the title, the author 
describes some new birds from Colombia, and, doubtless because this was 
somewhat incidental, he apparently forgot Dr. F. M. Chapman’s pains- 
taking work upon the avifauna of that country. The result is that he was 
not aware that Dr. Chapman had shown that most of Goudot’s specimens 
came from the region of the Quindio Pass and not from Bogota, so that in 
describing his new form of Chamepetes he has apparently redescribed the 
type race, that from Bogota being the unnamed one, if the two are really 
distinct. 

In his treatment of Odontophorus, while still failing to refer to Chapman’s 
work, his results are decidedly more nearly in accord with it. So much so, 
in fact, that he recognizes the Panama race of O. guianensis as distinct, 
just as Chapman did, and in naming it as a new form he uses the same name 
as Chapman had previously employed for the same purpose (!) and based 
his name upon one of McLeannan’s skins just as Chapman had done. Too 
much care cannot be taken in the description of new South American birds, 
as has been previously pointed out in these columns. So many different 
authors are engaged in the work that unless exceptional care is exercised 
it will take a great deal of painstaking research to straighten out the syn- 
onymy and correct the slips that have been made.— W. 8. 


The Ornithological Journals. 


Bird-Lore. XXI, No.2. March-April, 1919. 

The Warblers of Central New York. By Arthur A. Allen.— Photo- 
graphs of the Cerulean, Mourning, Chestnut-sided and Blackburnian 
Warblers and the Chat and an interesting account of their habits. 

Notes from a Traveller in the Tropics. III. From Panama to Peru. 
By Frank M. Chapman.— Describes the abundant sea bird life off the 
coast of Peru. 

Purple Martins on Stuart Acres. By F. A. Stuart. Gives the results 
of five years of bird protection on a Michigan Farm. 1400 bird boxes have 
been erected. For Martins there were ten boxes in 1914 occupied by 
46 pairs of birds, while in 1918 there were 222 pairs of these birds. One 
hundred and eleven species of birds have been noted on the estate, either 
as residents or transients. 


ere 


440 Recent Literature. 

Another Purple Martin Roost in the City of Washington. By Harry 
C. Oberholser — A further account of the birds described in ‘ Bird-Lore’ 
for 1917. 

The migration and plumage articles describe the Crows, with a colored 
plate by Fuertes as a frontispiece. In this illustration the difference in 
size of the bill of the Common Crow and Fish Crow is certainly exaggerated 
and the latter species lacks the greenish lustre that is characteristic of ‘it, 
but it is very difficult to get the proper color values in attempting to re- 
produce these glossy plumages. 

The Condor. XXI, No.2. March-April, 1919. 

Nesting of the Rocky Mountain Creeper. By W. C. Bradbury. With 
excellent photographs of the nest and eggs. 

Albert Mills Ingersoll — An Autobiography. 

Notes on the Breeding Habits of the Red Crossbill in the Okanagan 
Valley, British Columbia. By J. A. Munroe.— Eggs were deposited in 
March. 

Notes on the Nesting of two Little-known Species of Petrel. By George 
Willett.— Pterodroma hypoleuca and Oceanodroma tristrami on Laysan 
Island. 

Bird Notes of a Stormy May in Colorado Springs. By Edward R. 
Warren. 

Losses Suffered by Breeding Birds in Southern California. By H. A. 
Edwards. 

Olive Thorne Miller. By Florence Merriam Bailey 

Bird Records from the Sacramento Valley, California. By Alexander 
Wetmore. 

Notes from the Feather River Country and Sierra Valley, California. 
By Joseph Mailliard. 

The Marital Tie in Birds. By Loye Holmes Miller.— This is a paper 
that every student of bird life should read and seldom has the inability 
of the average observer to properly interpret animal behavior been more 
clearly explained. Prof. Miller is discussing Mr. F. C. Willard’s paper in 
the October ‘ Condor,’ “‘ Do Birds mate for Life? ’’ which has already been 
commented upon in these columns. He argues with much force that 
there is no reason whatever to expect the marital relation in birds to last 
more than one year while there are many reasons why it is improbable 
that a bird remates with the same individual. He cleverly shows that the 
duration of the marital tie is really for the period during which the young 
are dependent upon parental care. In human beings this, with a normal 
family, will extend over a period of forty years or more, while in birds it is 
merely a few months. Why therefore try to impose upon birds human 
conditions? 

The Summer Birds of Hazelton, British Columbia. By P. A. Taverner. 

The Ibis. XI, Series I, No. 2. April, 1919. 

Some Notes on Hieraaétus ayresi Gurney Sen. (Lophotriorchis lucani 


—— 


pt “A Sal Recent Literature. 44] 


Sharpe et auctorum). By C. G. Finch-Davies.— This species and not 
H. spilogaster occurs in South Africa. 

Notes on certain recently described Subspecies of Woodpeckers. By 
H. C. Robinson. 

Some Notes on Oriental Woodpeckers and Barbets. By E. C. Stuart 
Baker.— An important review of many groups in which Picus canus 
ricketti (p. 187), Fokien, China, is described as new. 

Notes on Birds observed in Palestine. By A. G. L. Sladen. 

A note on the Buzzards of the Ethiopian Region. By W. L. Sclater. 

Notes on Collections of Birds in the British Museum, from Ecuador, 
Peru, Bolivia, and Argentina. Part II. Podicipediformes — Accipitri- 
formes. By Charles Chubb.— Oreophilus ruficollis simonsi (p. 262), 
Challapata, Bolivia, is described as new. 

List of the Birds of the Canary Islands, with detailed reference to the 
Migratory Species and the Accidental Visitors. Part II. Turdide — 
Hirundinide. By David A. Bannerman. 

Notes on the Height at which Birds migrate. By Collingwood Ingram. 
— Capt. Ingram, serving with the Royal Air Force in France, presents his 
observations upon birds observed from aeroplanes. His highest record 
is 15,000 ft. 

Obituary. Frederick DuCane Godman; Theodore Roosevelt, Giacomo 
Doria and Louis Brasil. 

British Birds. XII, No. 10. March, 1919. 

Notes on the Birds of a Valley in the Champagne District, France. By 
E. Arnold Wallis. 

Observations on Birds seen in the Northeastern Atlantic Ocean, English 
Channel, St. George’s Channel, August to October, 1917. By D. G. 
Garnett.— Interesting daily data on the movements of various sea birds. 

The South Australian Ornithologist. IV, Part Il. January, 1919. 

Description of a new Subspecies of Climacteris. By J. W. Mellor. 
C. erythrops parsonsi (p. 5) South Australia. 

The Birds of the Southeastern Part of South Australia. By A. M. 
Morgan. 

In the Pine and Mallee. By J. W. Mellor. 

Revue Frangaise d’Ornithologie XI, No. 117. January, 1919. 
{In French]. 

The Principles of Geometry Applied by Birds in the Construction of the 
Nest. By Dr. F. Cathelin. 

Study of a Collection of Birds made by M. E. Wagner in the Provence 
of ‘ Misiones,’ Argentina. By A. Menegaux (concluded). 

Revue Frangaise d’Ornithologie. XI, No. 118. February, 1919. 
{In French.] 

Some Observations on the Nest of the Magpie. By A. Labitte. 


442 Recent Literature. [july 


Ornithological Articles in Other Journals.! 


Bailey, Alfred M. Observations on the Water Birds of Louisiana- 
(Natural History, XIX, January, 1919.)—A most interesting account of 
the bird refuges of the Gulf Coast of the State with a wealth of rémarkable 
illustrations from photographs by E. A. Mellheny, Stanley C. Arthur 
and the author, of Terns, Gulls, Egrets, Pelicans, Geese, ete. 

Bridgman, Herbert L. ‘‘ Four Years in the White North.” (Ibid., 
January, 1919.)— A review of D. B. MacMillan’s book with half-tone re- 
productions of photographs of the nesting of the Knot, its eggs and young. 

Zimmer, John T. Some Notes on the Birds of South Palawan, and 
Adjacent Islands. (Philippine Jour. of Science, XIII, Sect. D., No. 6: 
November, 1918.) — An annotated list of fifty-nine species, with a descrip- 
tion of a new species — Acmonorhynchus affinis (p. 384) from Palawan. 

Allen, Arthur A. The Water Fowl. (American Forestry, March, 
1919.) —A general account of American species with interesting illustra- 
ticns from photographs including the Mallard and Pintail in the eclipse 
plumage. 

Allen, Arthur A. The Plovers. (Ibid., February, 1919.) —A similar 
account of the Plovers with illustrations of the Killdeer and Black-bellied 
Plover. 

Oberholser, H.C. Description of a New Conurus from the Andaman 
Islands. (Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash., 32, pp. 29-32, April 11, 1919.) — Conu- 
rus fasciatus abbotti (p. 29) five races of the species are recognized. 

Oberholser, H. C. Mutanda Ornithologica. VI. (Ibid., pp. 21-22, 
April 11, 1919.) — Francolinus chinensis becomes F. pintadeanus (Seopoli), 
chinensis being preoccupied; Cuculus canorus minor Brehm for the same 
reason becomes C. c. bangsi nom. nov. (p. 22), while Monasa nigra (Muller) 
becomes M. atra (Boddaert) and Alcedo grandis becomes A. magalia nom. 
nov. (p. 22). 

Other ‘“‘mutanda”’ by Dr. Oberholser appear in the General Notes of 
the Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash., pp. 46-48. Here the family name of the 
Wood Warblers is changed from Mniotiltide to Compsothlypide; accord- 
ing to the author’s views Eumyias must change back again to Stoporala 
and Passerherbulus lecontei becomes P. caudacutus, the latter change is 
however only necessary if we adopt Dr. Oberholser’s extreme views on 
generic subdivision, if we follow the A. O. U. Check-List no change is 
required. 

Perkins, R.C.L. Ona New Genus and Species of Birds of the Family 
Drepanidide from the Hawaiian Islands. (Ann. and Mag. Nat. Hist., (9), 
Il, pp. 250-252, March, 1919.) — Dysmorodrepanis (p. 250), D. munrot 


1 Some of these journals are received in exchange, others are examined in the library 
of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. The Editor is under obligations to 
Mr. J. A. G. Rehn for a list of ornithological articles contained in the accessions to the 
library from week to week. 


‘big ig10 | Recent Literature. 443 


(p. 251), from Kaiholena Valley, Lanai, at 2000 ft. elevation. Only one 
specimen obtained, though Mr. Monroe, the collector, thought he had 
seen others on one or two occasions. It is allied to Psittacirostra. 

Loénnberg, Einar. Notes on Some Interesting East African Birds. 
(Archiv. for Zoologi XI, No. 5, pp. 1-5, 1917.) — A Collection made at 
Elgon and Loudiani B. E. A., by Dr. Leo Bayer. Astur tachiro tenebrosus 
(p. 2) and Zosterops bayert (p. 3) both from the latter locality are described 
as new. [In English.] 

Loénnberg, Einar. Birds Collected in Eastern Congo by Captain Elias 
Arrhenius (Ibid., X, No. 24, pp. 1-32). — A list of 184 species of which 
Accipiter beniensis (p. 13) and Neocossyphus rufus arrhenti (p. 31), both 
from Beni, are described as new. 

Oberholser, H.C. Diagnosis of a New Genus of Bucerotide. (Jour. 
Wash. Acad. Sci. IX, No. 6, pp. 167-168.) — Platycerax (p. 167), type 
Buceros semigaleatus Tweeddale. Inasmuch as the number of genera 
to be recognized is purely a matter of personal opinion and no “ proof”? is 
possible we much prefer the expression ‘‘ appears to be”’ distinct, rather 
than ‘ proves to be ”’ which latter Dr. Oberholser and some others employ. 

Hanna, G. Dallas. Notes on Birds of the Pribilof Islands. (Jour. 
Wash. Acad. Sciences, IX, No. 6, March 19, 1919.) — A brief mention of 
seventeen species new to the Pribilofs and four new to North America, i. e., 
Eunetta falcata, Heteroscelus brevipes, Thalassoaétus pelagicus and Anthus 
spinoletta japonicus. It is unfortunate that such important matter should 
be first published in such an obscure manner. 

Oberholser, H. C. Birds of a Washington City Dooryard. (The 
Amer. Midland Naturalist, VI, pp. 1-3.) —A remarkable list of 100 
species, occurring at the author’s home in Washington; many, however, 
were heard or seen flying over. The list covers a period of seven years. 
Both nomenclature and classification differ from the A. O. U. ‘Check-List ’ 
but vernacular names are given which are essentially those of the ‘Check- 
List.’ Both the Parula and Northern Parula are listed, based upon sight 
records of a single individual of each! 

Gladstone, H.S. Birdsand the War. (Nature, No. 102, pp. 488-489, 
1919).— Discusses effects on bird life direct and indirect: The impossi- 
bility of feeding birds and wartime restrictions against the practice; the 
uprising of farmers against birds as destroyers of crops and the efforts to 
overcome the erroneous impression; effect of noises and of aeroplanes in 
frightening birds, etc. 

Maxwell, Hubert. Note on Supposed Fascination of Birds. (Nature, 
March 6, 1919.) — Considers that the fantastic actions of the Stoat are not 
carried on with the intention of killing the bird at all. A similar note (/bid., 
February 20, p. 486) describes Australian birds excited by a coiled whip 
which they took for a snake, though they probably had never seen a snake. 
The writer argues that the fear of snakes is purely hereditary and cites 
as a parallel the actions of chickens when a hawk or aeroplane passes over 
them, although they had never been attacked by a hawk. 


444 Recent Literature. [oe 


Waite, Edgar R. Feeding Habits of Nestling Bee-eaters (Nature, 
March 6, 1919.) — In a Papuan species the young are said to defecate in 
the tunnel. Flies are attracted and their eggs hatched in the mass develop 
larvee upon which the young feed. 

Hilden, Aremas and Stenbach, K.S. On our knowledge of the Daily 
Fluctuation in the Body Temperature in Birds. (Skandinay. Archiv. fur 
Physiologie, XX XV, pp. 382-413. 1916.) 


Publications Received.— Alabama Bird Day Book, 1919. Issued 
by the Department of Game and Fish. John H. Wallace, Commissioner. 
Miss Sophia Watts, Secretary. 

Allen, Arthur A. (1) The Plovers. (American Forestry, February, 
1919.) (2) The Waterfowl. ([bid., March, 1919.) 

Bailey, Vernon, and Bailey, Florence Merriam. Wild Animals of 
Glacier National Park. Department of the Interior, National Park Ser- 
vice, 1918, pp. 1-210. Numerous halftone illustrations and map. Price 
50 cents from Supt. of Documents, Govt. Printing Office, Washington, 
iB O}: 

Ball, Alice E. A Year with the Birds. Illustrated by Robert Bruce 
Horsfall, 57 Colored Plates. Svo. pp. 1-191, Dodd, Mead and Co., New 
York City, 1918. $3.00 net. 

Forbush, E.H. (1) Eleventh Annual Report of the State Ornithologist 
for the Year 1918. Mass. State Department of Agriculture, 1919. (2) 
Food, Feeding and Drinking Appliances and Nesting Material to Attract 
Birds. State Department of Agriculture, Circular No. 2, 1918, pp. 1-31. 

Chubb, Charles. (1) Notes on Collections of Birds in the British 
Museum, from Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, and Argentina. Part I. Tina- 
mide — Rallide. (The Ibis, January, 1919.) (2) Descriptions of new 
Genera and a new Subspecies of South American Birds. (Ann. and Mag. 
of Nat. Hist., Ser. 9, Vol. II, July, 1918.) (3) Notes on the Family Dendro- 
colaptide, with Suggestions for its Division. (Ibid., Vol. III, March, 
1919.) 

Gilmore, Albert Field. Birds of Field, Forest and Park. With a 
Foreword by T. Gilbert Pearson, with Ilustrations by R. Bruce Horsfall 
and Louis Fuertes. The Page Company, Boston, 1919. 8vo., pp. 1-318. 
$2.50 net. 

Harris, Harry. Birds of the Kansas City Region. With an Introduc- 
tion by Ralph Hoffmann. (Trans. Acad. Sciences of St. Louis, Vol. XXIII, 
No. 8, pp. 213-371.) February 27, 1919. 

Lonnberg, Einar. (1) Birds Collected in Eastern Congo by Captain 
Elias Arrhenius. (Arkiv. for Zoologi K. Svenska. Vetenskapsakad., 
Band 10, No. 24, 1917.) (2) Notes on Some Interesting East African 
Birds. (Ibid., Band II, No. 5.) (3) Hybrid Gulls. (/bid., Band 12, 
No. 7, 1919.) 

Moseley, Edwin Lincoln. Trees, Stars and Birds. A Book of Outdoor 
Science. Illustrated in Colors from Paintings by Louis Agassiz Fuertes 


Di Recent Literature. 445 


and with photographs and drawings. 12mo., pp. 1-404. World Book 
Company, Yonkers-on-Hudson, New York. $1.40. 

Oberholser, H. C. (1) Mutanda Ornithologica. VI. (Proc. Biol. 
Soc. Wash., 32, pp. 21-22, April 11, 1919.) (2) Description of a New 
Conurus from the Andaman Islands. (lbid., pp. 23-32, April 11, 1919.) 


(3) General Notes. (Ibid., pp. 45-48.) 


Stephens, Frank. An Annotated List of the Birds of San Diego County, 
California. (Trans. San Diego Soc. Nat. Hist., Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 142-180. 
February 15, 1919.) 

Witherby, H. F. A Practical Handbook of British Birds, edited by 
H. F. Witherby. Illustrated with Colored Plates and Numerous Text Fig- 
ures. Part I. March 3, 1919. Price 4s. net per part. Witherby & Co. 
326 High Holborn, London. 


Ardea, VII, No. 4, December, 1918. 

Audubon Bulletin, The, Winter 1918-1919. Illinois Audubon Society. 

Avicultural Magazine, (3) X, Nos. 4, 5, and 6, February, March and 
April, 1919. 

Bird-Lore, X XI, No. 2, March-April, 1919. 

British Birds, XII, Nos. 9, 10, and 11, February, March and April, 1919. 

Bulletin of the American Game Protective Association, 8, No. 1, Janu- 
ary, 1919. 

Bulletin of the British Ornithologists’ Club, Nos. CCXL-CCXLI, 
February and March 31, 1919. 

Bulletin of the Charleston Museum, XV, Nos. 2, 3 and 4, February, 
March and April, 1919. 

Cassinia, 1918 (April, 1919). 

Condor, The, X XI, No. 2, March—April, 1919. 

Ibis, The, (II) I, No. 2, April, 1919. 

Journal of the Museum of Comparative Odlogy, I, No. 1-2 (double 
number), March 26, 1919. 

Natural History, XIX, Nos. 1 and 2, January and February, 1919. 

Odlogist, The, XXXVI, No. 3 and 4, March and April, 1919. 

L’Ornithologiste, XVI, 1918-1919, Nos. 1 to 6, October 1918- March, 
1919. 

Philippine Journal of Science, The, XIII, Sec. D, No. 6, November, 
1918. 

Revue Frangaise d’Ornithologie, XI, Nos. 117-119, January, February 
and March, 1919. 

Scottish Naturalist, The, No. 85-86, January-February, and No. 87- 
88, March-April, 1919. 

South Australian Ornithologist, The, IV, Part I, January, 1919. 

Wilson Bulletin, The, XX XI, No. 1, March, 1919. 

Zoological Society Bulletin, XXII, No. 1, January, 1919. 


446 Correspondence. [ pies 


CORRESPONDENCE 


Eprror or ‘THe Auk’: 


It is disappointing to find (Auk, April, 1919, pp. 317-318) that even so 
careful a reader and reasoner as yourself has failed to grasp my meaning, 
and the principles that I have attempted to put in practice. If you have 
failed in understanding me it can be expected that there is further mis- 
information abroad regarding my aims and methods. Whether this is 
my fault or that of others, a further statement seems necessary. 

You are quite correct when you state that I do not agree to the shghtest 
abandonment of the subspecifie principle. Neither am I a binomialist in 
the common sense of the term, as I hold that the trinomial is the only 
logical form of name for subspecific races. That I differ with some as to 
the exact degree of differentiation it is expedient to recognize in this manner 
and think that in the past the subspecific fact has been given undue promi- 
nence over the specific one, are matters of detail and do not interfere with 
any generally accepted fundamental principles. 

When however you say,— ‘Mr. Taverner would use this binomial for 
some one race (seen but not positively determined) of M. melodia’’ you are 
attributing to me sentiments that I do not hold, and I have expressed myself 
but poorly if you can base them on anything I have said or on examples I 
have furnished. On the contrary I have consistently applied the binomial 
collectively to all the races of a species, lumping them under the specific title 
and using the trinomial for each of the constituent subspecies. In this I 
have followed to the letter the principles of the A. O. U. as exemplified in 
the Check List of 1910 and am in harmony with all who believe in repre- 
senting the first described race by a trinomial name. The use of the 
binomial specific heading is an old one, sanctioned by the occasional prac- 
tice of writers of repute, notably yourself. I have therefore only used a 
recognized form in a recognized manner, departing from current practice 
only in its freer use. 

You suggest that where the exact subspecific status is doubtful, the 
abbreviation subsp? can be used as indicative of the fact. I grant it, but 
submit that it is redundant. According to A. O. U. practice there is 
absolutely no difference in meaning between the forms M. melodia and M. 
melodia subsp? except, perhaps, that a little greater emphasis is placed 
upon the question in the latter case. Of course to those who still cling to 
the nearly obsolete practice of giving the type race the specific binomial, 
as if the attendant subspecies were subordinate instead of codrdinate 
divisions, there is a great difference, but this reflects a concept that the 
A. O. U. has already rejected. 

It may be asserted with some justice that the listing of such forms as 
Magpie, Black Tern, Rough-leg and others as binomials savors of pedantry, 
as the possibility of American specimens being other than American forms 


Serpe , Correspondence. 447 


_is, in the majority of cases, very small. I would say that whilst the proba- 


bility is small it is not negligible. The persistence of Larus argentatus 
smithsonianus in our lists through acceptance of unverified authority, is 
evidence that this is a practical as well a theoretical source of error. 
The use of the specific term where the subspecific differentiation is not 
actually verified is a precaution against perpetuated error that is very 
cheaply applied. By its very nature it can cause no confusion, for the 
greater the subspecific certainty, the less necessity there is for naming it. 
When the probability becomes certainty, the subspecific title may be a 
convenience but it ceases to be a scientific necessity. The further the 
probability departs from certainty the more advisable subspecific designa- 
tion becomes but the more cautious we should be in applying it. It would 
be interesting to know how often since their original description these 
““American”’ races have been examined and compared with adequate 
extralimital material. It would not be surprising if many of them failed 
to stand modern tests and were found to rest on faith rather than fact. 
Your parallel between these subspecific cases and the New-world Tit- 
lark is another question. Doubt unquestionably exists with species as 


_ with subspecies and if there were as easy a way of generalizing upon them 


I would advocate its adoption. As there is no such neutral course I do not 
see that we can do other than get along as well as we can with an imperfect 
system. Specific difficulties of this kind are comparatively few whilst 
subspecific ones are legion and that we cannot correct the few former is 
no argument against progress with the many latter when it can be obtained 
by simple methods, already to hand, which have received the sanction of 
leading authorities and the A. O. U. 

An objection that has been generally advanced against records made in 
the manner under discussion is that they are ‘‘unquotable.’’ I cannot see 
that a definite subspecific identification made in a concrete statement in 
small print is any less quotable than when made by inference in a heading 
in heavy type. Where such identifications are not definite they certainly 
can not be quoted as definite. The fault, if fault there is here, lies in the 
writer, not in the method of presentation, for the latter certainly allows a 
freedom of action that has great advantages. 

If there is no room in scientific literature for other than final results; 
if no interest lies in specific facts and distributions unaccompanied by 
subspecific identities, such identifieations, definite specifically but indefinite 
subspecifically, as I have published lately are to be condemned. If how- 
ever, we admit that a species is worthy of study as a species, and that 
statements of evidence uninfluenced by preconceptions can be presented 
as the basis for future generalizations rather than as finalities such lists 
fill a valuable place in scientific investigation. In attempting an orderly 
arrangement of our material we have had a tendency towards forcing of 
facts into pigeon holes prepared far them. The attempt to make every 
specimen agree with a preconceived scheme is not for the advancement of 
science. To call intergrading, worn, undeveloped, mutating or wandering 


448 Correspondence. [ ae 


plumages known instead of unknown quantities will not solve zodlogical 
equations and may produce astonishing results. Our ab’s and zy’s should 
be recognized as such and kept separate, the former only being used in 
final solutions and the latter put aside for future consideration and in- 
corporation in the problem when increased knowledge justifies. Against 
this there is the constant cry for exact information on the grounds that he 
who examines material is best qualified to pronounce upon it. Exact 
information is most desirable but we do not want to obtain an appearance 
of it by disguising a guess as a verified fact. Of course when our own 
knowledge or material fails there is always the alternative of submitting 
the problem to “authority,” but the question then is, what authority and 
how far it should be accepted without verification. It may be admitted 
that some specialists, through wide experience and specially developed 
faculties, at times attain an almost uncanny intuition as to the identity of 
specimens, and their opinions even where they fail to support them by 
evidence convincing to others carry considerable weight, but we cannot 
admit that the mere dicta of even such gifted mortals should be accepted 
without reservation nor can their findings relieve the rest of us from the 
responsibility. When such determinations are to be included in our 
presentations they certainly should be given for just what they are, quota- 
tions of others, and their source plainly indicated, not only that due credit 
be given but to protect the writer and that the personality, experience and 
viewpoint of the authority may be estimated by the reader. For this 
purpose it seems to me the binomial heading and subspecific discussion in 
accompanying text offers the most ample opportunities without violating 
any of the vital principles of modern practice. 
P. A. TAVERNER, 
Geological Survey, 
Ottawa, Canada, April 26, 1919. 


[Our ‘‘misunderstanding” of Mr. Taverner’s practice is we think more 
imaginary than real. When one sees a single Song Sparrow and being in 
doubt as to its subspecific identity, uses the term Melospiza melodia, it 
seems that he is using the term for ‘“‘some one race’’ just as stated in our 
previous note. In many cases too he uses the binomial heading with no 
subspecific discussion whatever in the text, which is the practice that we 
particularly criticised. However, this is a trivial matter. We understand 
and are in sympathy with Mr. Taverner’s desire to record facts and not 
guesses, but we still consider that his method is confusing and the use of 
“subsp?” is necessary if his meaning is to be made clear to the great bulk 
of readers. The number who do not yet understand the A. O. U. plan as 
practised in the last edition of the ‘Check List’ is vastly greater than Mr. 
Taverner imagines. They still think that every binomial indicates one sort 
of bird! ; 

By introducing a system of this sort, which only a few are likely to follow, 


ih Notes and News. 449 


we only cause confusion. Presently some one else will suggest another 
scheme and before we know it we shall have hopeless chaos and our indexes 
will lead us nowhere. 

To those who have struggled long with the maze of published names and 
who by the aid of well framed codes are beginning to see the solution of 
that side of the nomenclatorial problem, it is discouraging to encounter 
well intentioned innovations such as Mr. Taverner’s, and the endless 
activities of the genus splitter who has forgotten that a name is a name and 
tries to make of it a phylogenetic expression which changes with every 
user. There can be no rules to govern such phases of nomenclature which 
will always be matters of personal opinion. Why not let well enough 
alone?— W. S.] 


NOTES AND NEWS 


Dr. Louts Brasin, a Foreign Member of the B. O. U., who was elected 
a Corresponding Fellow of the A. O. U. at the last meeting, died at Caen, 
France, October 15, 1918, but the news of his death has only recently been 
received. From ‘The Ibis’ we learn that Dr. Brasil was born in Paris in 
1865 and at the time of his death was only 53 years of age. He was brought 
up at Caen where he received his education and where he became Lecturer 
and later Professor of Zodlogy in the University. He also served as Presi- 
dent of the Linnaean Society of Normandy. 

His work included invertebrate zodlogy and geology as well as ornithology, 
but on the latter subject he published several important papers. He 
contributed the sections on Apteryges, Cassowaries, Cranes and Emus to 
Wytsmann’s ‘Genera Avium,’ 1905, and in 1914 published alittle work on 
the ‘Shore- and Water-Birds of France, Belgium and the British Islands.’ 
Two years before his death he published a paper on the Birds of New Cale- 
donia, containing descriptions of several new forms based on two collections 
made by French officers in 1865-69 and deposited in the Caen Museum. 
Dr. Brasil contributed several papers and short notes to the ‘Revue 
Frangaise d’Ornithologie’ and also to ‘The Ibis.’ His writings and his 
work in general were characterized by care and accuracy.— T. S. P. 


FREDERICK BripcHamM McKecanir, an Associate of the A. O. U. from 
1900 to 1911, was born in Dorchester, Mass., Sept. 19, 1882, and lived 
there until about 1900 when his family moved to Ponkapog, Mass. He 
seems always to have been interested in birds, and this move from a subur- 
ban district to Ponkapog, a small country town west of the Milton Hills, 
and in a setting of as wild country as there is in eastern Massachusetts, 
was distinctly congenial. 


450 Notes and News. [te 


Graduating from the English High School of Boston in 1898, he decided 
to go into business, rather than to put his family to the additional expense 
of sending him through college; and on January 1, 1899, went to work in 
Yamanaka’s Japanese store in Boston. 

Becoming dissatisfied with the somewhat narrow possibilities and un- 
congenial atmosphere of his position, he decided that he would like to 
study landscape architecture, and entered my office as a student. 

Quiet and careful, with no end of energy, he became a firstclass draughts- 
man. While he never pretended to be a botanist, he acquired an all-round 
working knowledge of the trees and shrubs of Northeastern North America, 
and of the garden varieties of herbaceous perennials. Superintending a 
good deal of planting and other outdoor work, he became an expert in the 
handling, planting and pruning of nursery stock, as well as in the building 
of roads, grading, etc. and in the handling of men. 

Besides having a sharp eye, McKechnie was a very careful and reliable 
observer, and his ornithological records were remarkable for their neatness 
and scientific accuracy; his personally taken collection of New England 
eges was beautifully kept; and the skins which he prepared were always 
particularly well made. He was also a photographer of no mean ability. 

He collected a library of books on birds and mammals, and had an almost 
uncanny ability for unearthing rare old volumes and papers, which, with 
an innate Yankee propensity for trading, he usually acquired with prompt- 
ness and dispatch. 

He was not always successful in his quests, however, for I remember how 
after the death of Joseph M. Wade, McKechnie, who had known him well, 
spent weeks in rescuing priceless old books and papers, Wilsoniana and 
Auduboniana, from piles and barrels en route to the dump, to which they 
had been consigned by an over-efficient housekeeper, only to find that these 
treasures, which he had been led to believe had been left to him by Mr. 
Wade, belonged by rights to some heirs who were fighting in the courts 
over his estate. McKechnie wisely placed these papers in a safety-deposit 
vault, refusing to give them up to any of the unappreciative litigants, till 
the courts should have decided to whom they properly belonged; and then, 
as he could not afford to buy them himself, made arrangements whereby, 
through the generosity of Mr. John E. Thayer, the papers went to the 
Museum of Comparative Zoédlogy at Cambridge, where they could be safely 
kept for posterity. 

McKechnie had fine taste in a lot of things, and was particularly happy 
in his choice of friends, of whom he had many. One of the squarest men 
I ever met in all the years in which we worked or played together, there 
was never an unkind or hasty word or even thought; and I never knew 
him to say or do an unkind thing. No matter what he might be asked to 
do in the exigencies of a busy season, he did it gladly and to the best of 
his ability. 

In the Spring of 1911, he first showed signs of breakdown, and went on a 
trip with A. C. Bent to Alaska and the Aleutian Islands, in the hope that 


ict 1 | Notes and News. 451 


his health might be benefited. His trouble, however, proved incurable, 
and he died March 1, 1913, after a particularly sad and lingering illness, 
mourned by his family and many friends.— Frep H. KENNARD. 


Tue American Society of Mammalogists was organized at Washington, 
D. C., at a meeting held April 3 and 4, 1919. There was a charter member- 
ship of over 250, of which 60 were in attendance. 

The following officers were elected: C. Hart Merriam, President; E. W. 
Nelson, First Vice-President; Wilfred H. Osgood, Second Vice-President; 
H. H. Lane, Recording Secretary; Hartley H. T. Jackson, Corresponding 
Secretary; Walter P. Taylor, Treasurer. The Councilors are: Glover M. 
Allen; R. M. Anderson; J. Grinnell; M. W. Lyon; W. D. Matthew; 
John C. Merriam; Gerrit 8. Miller, Jr.; T.S. Palmer; Edward A. Preble; 
Witmer Stone; and N. Hollister, Editor. Committees were appointed on: 
Life Histories of Mammals, C. C. Adams, Chairman; Study of Game Mam- 
mals, Charles Sheldon, Chairman; Anatomy and Phylogeny, W. K. 
Gregory, Chairman; and Bibliography, T. S. Palmer, Chairman. 

The policy of the Society will be to devote its attention to the study of 
mammals in a broad way, including life histories, habits, evolution, pale- 
ontology, relations to plants and animals, anatomy, and other phases. 
Publication of the ‘Journal of Mammalogy,’ in which popular as well as 
technical matter will be presented, will start this year. 

The annual dues are three dollars, for which members receive the 
journal. Anyone qualifying before the next annual meeting will be 
considered a charter member. 


We learn from ‘Science’ that the Parliament of Quebec has created the 
colonies of breeding waterfowl on the shores and islands of the Gulf of St. 
Lawrence, including the famous Bird Rock and the Gannet rookeries 
on the cliffs of Bonaventure, into one great preserve to be known as the 
Gaspe Bird Reserves. 


In a notice in the January ‘Auk’ Dr. Charles W. Townsend calls for 
notes of interest on the birds of Essex County, Mass., which may be in- 
corporated in a supplement to his volume on ‘The Birds of Essex County’ 
published in 1905. Unfortunately the notice stated that these notes 
should be in hand by November 1, 1918, instead of 1919. 


Brrps In THE Museums or WarsAw.— In the ‘Journal fiir Ornithologie’ 
for April, 1918, pp. 286-287, Prof. Neumann has made an interesting state- 
ment regarding the two important collections of birds in Warsaw, Poland, 
belonging to the Zodlogical Museum of the University and the Branicki 
Museum. ; 

The nucleus of the University Museum series was a collection made in 
Silesia by Von Minckwitz in the latter half of the eighteenth and early 
part of the nineteenth centuries. Both museums are rich in types of birds 


452 Notes and News. [sus 


from the two general regions of central and eastern Asia and certain parts 
of South America. The birds of Daurea, the Amur region, Kamchatka, 
and Korea are represented by the collections of Dybowski, Godlewski, 
Jankowski and Kalinowski, and form the basis of Taczanowski’s great 
work ‘Fauna ornithologique de la Siberie orientale.’ The University 
Museum also has some of Przewalski’s types and Mlokosievicz’s birds from 
the Caucasus, and the Branicki Museum the Barey collections from the 
Transcaspian region and the Ferghana District of Turkestan. 

From South America the University Museum has the collections of 
Jelski from Cayenne and Peru, and part of the Stolzmann material from 
Peru and Ecuador, while the later Stolzmann collections were deposited 
in the Branicki Museum. These birds formed the basis of Taczanowski’s 
‘Ornithologie du Péron.’ Stolzmann’s work in Peru was continued by 
Jean Kalinowski whose collections were worked up by Count von Berlepsch 
and Stolzmann. The Branicki Museum also contains the birds obtained 
by Dr. Siemiradski in Argentina and Patagonia and those collected by 
Count Branicki in Egypt, Tunis and Algeria. 

It appears that upon the approach of the German troops about 300 types 
and the entire collection of hummingbirds in the University Museum were 
sent to Russia but what disposition was subsequently made of them is not 
stated— T. S. P. 


Tue activity of ornithologists in working up the birds of Africa is clearly 
shown by the fact that nearly 1000 new species and subspecies were de- 
scribed during the decade from 1905 to 1914. In the ‘Journal fiir Orni- 
thologie’ for January, 1918, pp. 61-110, Dr. Reichenow has published a 
list of 979 new forms which have been named since the publication in 1905 
of his work ‘Die Vogel Afrikas.’ 


Tue B. O. U. at its annual meeting honored several American Ornitholo- 
gists. Dr. L. Stejneger was elected an Honorary Member, Dr. Joseph 
Grinnell and Mr. Outram Bangs, Foreign Members, and Mr. P. A. Taverner 
a Colonial Member. Mr. J. H. Fleming is likewise a Colonial Member 
though his name was accidentally omitted in a list recently published in 
these columns (Auk, 1918, p. 513). 


Stnce the death of Dr. F. D. Godman a movement has been inaugurated 
by the B. O. U. to provide a suitable memorial of the work of Salvin and 
Godman. While the details of the plan have not yet been received it is 
understood that the proposed memorial will probably take the form of a 
gold medal to be given at certain intervals for specially meritorious work 
in ornithology. 


Kaa collecting in California seems to be developing along the lines of 
“Odélogical Museums.’ One of these, the Woodland Heights Museum of 


Analytical Odlogy, of which Milton 8. Ray is Curator and Rose Carolyn 


‘ 


cane Notes and News. 453 


Ray Librarian, is located at Mr. Ray’s home in San Francisco. The material 
consists of Mr. Ray’s collection and some others which he has associated 
with it. 

Another is the Museum of Comparative Odlogy of which Mr. W. Leon 
Dawson is Director and Secretary and Mrs. Etta A. Dawson Cataloguer. 
This consists chiefly of Mr. Dawson’s collection, and that of Mr. F. C. 
Willard which was secured by donation. Each museum has a board of 
directors and list of correspondents or visitors, while the latter one has an 
elaborate system of fellows, patrons, members, collectors, etc., representing 
eight grades. 

Mr. Dawson has recently issued the first number of the ‘Journal’ of this 
Museum, a pamphlet of 35 pages written entirely by himself and consisting 
of an advertisement of the Museum with an appeal for material and a 
sketch of the late R. G. Hazard, a trustee of the Museum. It is the hope 
of the director to secure sufficient funds to erect a museum building at 


“Santa Barbara to house the collection which is now in temporary quarters 


at his home in that city. 


Tue ‘American Museum Journal,’ which under the able editorship of 
Mary Cynthia Dickerson has developed into one of the most important 
popular journals of science in America, begins its nineteenth year under 
the new title ‘Natural History.’ 

This magazine, published monthly from October to May, is furnished to 
all members of the American Museum as one of the privileges of mem- 
bership. It may also be secured at any time by subscription, at $2.00 
per year. 


Tue Franklin Book Shop, 920 Walnut St., Philadelphia, announces, 
‘The Passenger Pigeon in Pennsylvania’ by John C. French, edited and 
published by Henry W. Shoemaker; a volume of 257 pages, fully illustrated. 
Only 500 copies have been printed, and the work is for sale at the above 
address only; price $4.00. A review will be published in the October 
Auk.’ 


Tur Thirty-seventh Stated Meeting of the American Ornithologists’ 
Union will be held in the American Museum of Natural History, New York 
City, November 11-13, 1919, with a business session of the Fellows and 
Members on the evening of the 10th. All members of the Society should 
keep the date in mind and arrange if possible to be present. The scientific 
sessions of the last annual meeting had to be cancelled owing to the in- 
fluenza epidemic and only the business session was held, so that there will 
have been virtually an interim of two years since the last gathering of the 
Union. The cessation of the war and the return of many members from 
France will make the coming meeting one of the most noteworthy in the 
history of the organization. 


=~ 
454 foe. Notes and News. ae & 


The By-Laws provide that nominations to the classes of Fellows and 
Members shall be made in writing, signed by three Fellows or Members and 
delivered to the Secretary at least three months prior to the Stated Meeting. 
There is one vacancy in the class of Fellows and there will be opportunities 
for the election of 5 Members. Nominations should be in the hands of the _ 
Secretary not later than August 10 and should be accompanied by a full ~ 
statement of the qualifications of the candidate including a statement of 
his work and a list of his publications if any. Nomination blanks may be 
had upon application. 


~ 


¢ ) 
wii 
ye 
ah 
: 
’ 
* 


American Urnithlaaists Unio 


Check-List of North American 
Birds 
Last Edition, 1910 


Cloth, 8vo, pp. 430 and two maps of North America, 
one a colored, faunal zone map, and one a locality map. 

The first authoritative and complete list of North 
American Birds published since the second edition of 
the Check-List in 1895. The ranges of species and 
geographical races have been carefully revised and 
greatly extended, and the names conform to the latest 


* rulings of the A. O. U. Committee on Nomenclature. 
_ The numbering of the species is the same as in the 
- second edition. Price, including postage, $3.00. 


ee 
Se 


POCKET EDITION 
A pocket Check-List (3: by 52 inches) of North 
American Birds with only the numbers and the scientific 


-and popular names. Alternate pages blank for the 


insertion of notes. Flexible covers. Price, including 


postage, 30 cents. 


Address JONATHAN DWIGHT 
fe W..'7 1st St. New York City 


PUBLICATIONS OF THE 


AMERIGAN ORNITHOLOGISTS’ UNION 


FOR SALE AT THE FOLLOWING PRICES: 


The Auk. Complete set, Volumes I-XXXV, (1884-1918) in origi- 
nal covers, $117.00. Volumes I-VI are sold only with complete 
sets, other volumes, $3.00 each; 75 cents for single numbers. — 


Index to The Auk (Vols. I-X XVI, 1884-1900) and Bulletin of the ot 
Nuttall Ornithological Club (Vols. I-VIII, 1876-1883), 8vo, PP. 
vii + 426, 1908. Cloth, $3.75 post-paid; paper, $3.25. y 


Index to The Auk (Vols. XXVIII-XXXVII, 1901-1910), Svo, pp. 
xvili +250, 1915. Cloth, $3.00; paper, $2.00. ; 


Check-List of North American Birds. Third edition, revised. 
1910. Cloth, 8vo, pp. 426, and 2 maps. $3.00. Second editio: 
revised, 1895. Cloth, Svo, pp. xi + 372. $1.15. Original editi 
1886. Out of print. ; 4 


Abridged Check-List of North American Birds. 1889. (Abridged ; 
and revised from the original edition). Paper, 8vo, pp. 71, printed. . 
on one side of the page. 25 cents. 


Pocket Check-List of North American Birds. (Abridged from 
the third edition). Flexible cover, 3} X 5} inches. 30 cents. 


Code of Nomenclature. Revised edition, 1908. Paper, 8vo, pp. 
Ixxxv. 50 cents. 
Original edition, 1892. Paper, 8vo, pp. iv + 72. 25 cents. 


= iy 


A. O. U. Official Badge. An attractive gold and blue enamel 
pin, with Auk design, for use at meetings or on other 


occasions. Post-paid 50 cents. 


Address JONATHAN DWIGHT 


134 W. 7Ist St., New York, N. Y. ( 


The Cosmos Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. 


TET 
x Old CONTINUATION OF THE Hise 
Vol. XLIV BULLETIN OF THE NUTTALL ORNITHOLOGICAL CLUB Vol, XXXVI 

H Quarterly Journal of Ornithology 
‘| Vol. XXXVI“ OCTOBER, 1919 No. 4 


PUBLISHED BY 


The American Ornithologists’ Union 


CAMBRIDGE, MASS. 


Entered as second-class mail matter in the Post Office at Boston, Mass. 
“ Acceptance for mailing at special rate of postage provided for in Section 
1103, Act of October 3, 1917, authorized on September 23, 1918.” 


CONTENTS 


' PAGE 
Nores on a NEw SUBSPECIES OF BLUE-WINGED TEAL. By Fred H. Kennard ; 
(Plate XVII) ! f : i i : , : f : is 455 
Tue SysTeMaTiIc PosiTION OF THE RING-NECKED Duck. By N. Aollister . - 460 
Jacos Post Giraup, JR., AND HIS WorKS. By Witmer Stone (Plate XVIII) . 464 ; 
FurtHER NoTES AND OBSERVATIONS ON THE Birps OF HATLEY, STANSTEAD County, 
QueEBEc, 1918. By H. Mousley \ é 4 ‘ : . 472 
DicHROMATISM IN THE WEDGE-TAILED SHEARWATER. By Leverett Mills Loomis 
(Plate XIX) . : } l t : i : : ; : : . 487 
Tue Nest anp Eacs or WaAYNE’S WARBLER (Dendroica virens waynet) TAKEN 
NEAR Mount Pueasant, 8. C. By Arthur T. Wayne 489 


A Heronry ON LakE CorMORANT, Minnesota. By Horace Gunthorp . f 492 


Birp-Lire In SOUTHWESTERN FRANCE. By Thomas D. Burleigh . 5 497 
Nores on Birps OF THE CHICAGO AREA AND ITS IMMEDIATE VICINITY. By C. W. 
G. Eifrig ‘ : : ; 4 : é : ? ‘ : : bls 
GEOGRAPHICAL VARIATION IN THE SONG OF THE RUBY-CROWNED KinGLET. By | 
Aretas A. Saunders : i , A s : : a ; 525 | 
Tur Evo.LurTion Or Birp-Sona. By Francis H. Allen : 4 J . : 528 { 
REVISION OF THE GENUS Buthraupis CaBanis. By Thomas E. Penard 3 4 536 | 
DESCRIPTIONS OF THREE NEw SoutH AMERICAN Birps. By Charles B. Cory . 540 | 
Tue RELATIONSHIP OF THE GULLS KNowNn As Larus fuscus AND Larus afints. By 
Jonathan Dwight, M. D. (Plates XX and XX]) : 2 < ; 542 ag 
Forster's Epition or LEVAILLANT’S ‘‘OISEAUX D’AFRIQUE.”’ By Charles W. | 
Richmond : , : f ; ft . 5 4 , , : 546 | 
Notes ON THE Races OF Quiscalus quiscula (LINN©=us). By Harry C. Oberholser . 549 | 
Notes on NortH AMERICAN Birps. IX. By Harry C. Oberholser . : 3 556 | 


GENERAL Norss.— European Widgeon on Long Island in Winter, 560; Breeding of the 

Black Duck in Lake Co., Ohio, 560; Ruddy Shelldrake on the Atlantic Coast, 561; r 
Ezanthemops Elliot an Excellent Genus, 562; Notes on the Structure of Anseranas 
semtpalmata, 562; Sarksdiornis sylvicola in British Guiana, 564; An Overlooked 
Record of the Trumpeter Swan, 564; Little Blue Heron on Long Island, N. Y., 565; 
Wood Ibis in Massachusetts, 565; Roseate Spoonbill in Utah, 565; Roseate Spoon- 
bill in North Carolina, 566; Growth of a Young Killdeer (Ozyechus v. voctferus), 566; 
Mating ‘‘Song”’ of the Piping.Plover, 566; Upland Plover in New York, 567; Turkey 
Vulture at Plymouth, Mass., 567; Harris’s Hawk in Kansas, 567; Tachytriorchis, 
the Generic Name for the White-tailed Hawk, 567; A Flight of Broad-winged Hawks 
and Roughlegs in Lake Co., Ohio, 568; Buteonide versus Accipitride, 569; Snowy 
Owl in Detroit, Mich., 569; The Name of the Black Cuckoo, 569; Aerial Evolutions 
of a Flicker, 570; Two Recent Records of the Horned Lark in Western New York, 
570: Abnormal Beak of a Horned Lark (Otocoris alpestris praticola), 571; The Raven 
in Connecticut, 572; Evening Grosbeaks about Beverly Farms, Mass., 572; Evening 
Grosbeaks at Boonville, N. Y., 573; The Evening Grosbeak on Long Island, N. Y., 
573: Evening Grosbeaks again at Lakewood, N. J., 573; Evening Grosbeak (Hespers- 
phona v. vespertina) in Ohio in May, 574; Henslow’s Sparrow in New York and 
Virginia, 574; The Dickcissel in Virginia, 575; Ptranga erythromelas versus Piranga 
olivacea, 575; The Tanagrine Genus Procnopis Cabanis, 576; Early Arrival of the 
Tree Swallow in Plymouth, 577; Hybrid Warbler in Missouri, 579; The Orange- 
crowned Warbler on Long Island in April, 579; Peculiar Brooding of the Black- 
throated Blue Warbler, 579; The Yellow-throated Warbler in Central New York, 
580; Nesting of the Myrtle Warbler in Southern Massachusetts, 581; The Cerulean 
Warbler (Dendroica cerulea) in the Catskills, 582; Carolina Wren (Thryothorus l. 
ludovictanus) Nesting in Rhode Island, 583; A Short-billed Marsh Wren Colony in 
Central New Hampshirt, 583; Red-bellied Nuthatch (Sttta canadensis) in Alabama, 
584: The Blue-gray Gnatcatcher on Cape Cod, 584; Strange Conduct of a Robin, 
584; A Three-legged Robin (Planesticus m. migratorius), 585; Notes from St. Marks, 
Fla., 586; Further Notes from Leon Co., Florida, 587; Two Interesting Additions 
to the Collection of the Boston Society of Natural History, 589; Bird Notes from 
Collins, Erie Co., N. Y., 589; Additions to ‘The Birds of Liberty County Ga.,” 
590; Data on the Age of Birds, 591. 


Recent LirERATURE.— Bent’s ‘Life Histories of North American Diving Birds,’ 593; 
Ridgway’s ‘The Birds of North and Middle America, Part VIII,’ 595; Witherbys’ 
“A Practical Handbook of British Birds, 597; Roberts on Minnesota Birds, 598; 
Second Ten Year Index to The Condor, 598; Riley on New Birds from Celebes and 
Java, 599: Chubb on South American Birds, 599; Lonnberg on Hybrid Gulls, 599; 
Recent Papers by Oberholser, 600; Captain S. A. White’s Explorations in Australia, 
601; Bangs and Penard’s ‘Critical Bird Notes,’ 601; Cassinia for 1918, 602; Glad- 
stone’s ‘Birds and the War,’ 602; Mathew’s ‘The Birds of Australia,’ 603; Wetmore 
on Lead Poisoning in Waterfowl, 605; French’s ‘The Passenger in Pennsylvania, 
605: Economic Ornithology and Bird Protection, 606; Report of the National 
Zoological Park, 607; Annual Report of the New York Zoological Society,607 ; The 
Meaning of Natural Control, 608; An Essay on Crows, 609; Two Papers on African 
Economic Ornithology, 609; Report on the Economic Value of Eight British Birds, 
610: The Ornithological Journals, 610; Ornithological Articles in Other Journals, 617. 


CorrESPONDENCE.— Permits to Collect Birds for Scientific Purposes in Canada, 621; 
Captain Thomas Brown’s ‘Illustrations of the American Ornithology of Wilson and 
Bonaparte,’ 623; Feeding of Grackles, 627. { 


Notes anv News.— Obituary Notices — William Brewster, 628; M. Namiye, 628; 
Merrill Willis Blain, 629; Leo Wiley, 629; Indexes to Ornithological Literature — 
Journals, 630; Where American Ornithologists Rest, 631; Complete Sets of ‘The 
Auk,’ 634; The Smithsonian African Expedition, 634; Annual Meeting of the 


A. O. U., 635 
MMDEX . 4 ‘ i : ¥ i s 4 : : : : , ; 637 
ERRATA Ss : A : i é : ; , ; L : F 668 
Dates or IssuzE . 4 i 4 : 4 , : 668 
Orricers oF THE A. O. U. Past anp PRESENT : : 4 y ; - i f 
CoNTENTS . E A ; 3 é : 4 ; , veh . iil \behy 


‘TAX 


ALVId 


"9161 ‘% Iady 


ee ee 


ana Cre - 7 ‘ ie rr AT 
By] “lomoyy pussy (nyanuiqyD sLoasip DInpanbian?)) WAT, NUAHLAOY 


‘6061 ‘OL dy ‘A 'N ‘oye vended ‘(suoosip ssoosip vinpanbion()) IWAT, AAONIM-TOTE 


at 


G 
lt 


TAXXX “TOA SANY FHL 


Ee aw i: 


A QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF 


ORNITHOLOGY. 


VOU. XXXVI. OctToBER, 1919. No. 4. 


NOTES ON A NEW SUBSPECIES OF BLUE-WINGED 
TEAL. 


BY FRED H. KENNARD. 
Plate XVII. 


On February 2, 1916, I had the good luck to be one of the guests 
of Mr. E. A. MclIlhenny on his extremely interesting family estate 
at Avery Island, Louisiana. We had been watching the hundreds 
of wild ducks of several species that were swimming or flying about 
one of the ponds, when Mr. MclIlhenny pointed out what he called 
a “Southern Teal,” which, he said, was the type of Blue-winged 
Teal that breeds in Louisiana. Now as I had never even heard 
of a “Southern Teal” and, until then, had never realized that any 
kind of Teal bred in Louisiana, I was, of course, very much sur- 
prised and interested. 

The bird was paddling about at a distance of perhaps 150 to 200 
feet, and could be told at a glance from its fellows. It was, appar- 
ently, an adult male Blue-winged Teal, in nuptial plumage, but 
with the crescent-shaped white spot in front of the eye continued 
over the eye as a thin white line down to the nape, where it con- 
verged with the line from the opposite side, in a conspicuous white 
patch. 

We saw a number of these birds while staying at Mr. McIhenny’s 
and later heard of them at Grand Chenier in Cameron Parish, from 

455 


456 Kennarp, New Subspecies of Blue-winged Teal. (ou 


Mr. R. B. Worthen, a gunner and collector of wide experience. 
Later still, while staying on Mr. Mcllhenny’s houseboat on the 
Ward-Mcllhenny Game Preserve, in Vermilion Parish, we again 
heard of the bird from his warden there, and saw numbers of them 
among the other Teal that were wintering in the adjacent sloughs. 
They are known locally as the “ Necktie Teal” among the gunners 
and natives along the Louisiana marshes, and seem to be recognized 
by them as the resident breeding birds of the region. 

Mr. MclIlhenny writes, regarding the white patch on the nape, 
“all of the birds that nest in the south seem to have the marking 
faintly, and about fifteen to twenty per cent have it very pro- 
nounced.” 

Mr. Worthen writes, “From what I can learn about the White- 
crested Teal, they are the birds that breed withus . . . . All the Teal 
that I ever collected with the white crest were in pairs, and I think 
there is no doubt that they are the birds that stay with us, and the 
others go farther north to breed.” 

From the data that I have since been able to assemble, it appears 
that the Blue-winged Teal from the north begin to arrive along the 
Gulf Coast about the middle of September, and are there in large 
numbers until about the middle of October, when many of them 
leave for the south. By the first of December, the great majority 
of the large flocks have departed, though some birds remain through- 
out the winter. Mr. MclIlhenny writes that “the regular migra- 
tion of Blue-winged Teal from the north begins about the middle 
of September, and most of them have left by the end of October, 
although a great many stay here all winter,’’ while Mr. Worthen 
states, “ The Blue-winged Teal arrives here from the north from the 
15th of September to the 15th of October and stays until the first 
of December and then goes farther south; some stay all winter.” 

After spending the winter farther south, these northern birds 
return to Louisiana, usually some time in March, and, picking up 
their fellows who happen to have wintered there, wend their way 
north early in April, practically all of them having departed by 
May 1. Of this northern movement Mr. MclIlhenny writes, “ There 
is a heavy migration in the spring, about March 10th. The birds 
increase in numbers until April Ist, when they begin to decrease 
and leave only resident birds in the marshes,’’ and Mr. Worthen, 


4 


et wa Kennarp, New Subspecies of Blue-winged Teal. 457 


writing of the northern bird, says, “The Blue-winged Teal stays 
with us until about the first of April, and sometimes as late as 
May Ist.” 

With regard to the Southern Teal, it is difficult to say what pro- 
portion pass the winter on their breeding grounds or how many of 
them migrate. They are common during the winter, according to 
my own observations, in Iberia, Vermilion and Cameron Parishes, 
and, presumably, all along the Louisiana coastal marshes. Several 
specimens have been taken in Florida, where the bird may breed, 
and even as far east as the Isle of Pines and Andros Island. They 
have been taken in Texas and in Mexico, where they undoubtedly 
breed, and as far south as Costa Rica; and I have seen two speci- 
mens from Arizona and one from Lower California. 

Mr. Louis Agassiz Fuertes writes of seeing them at Waldo, Texas, 
April 19, 1901, when he made a sketch of a specimen; and again in 
Mexico, “south of Tampico in the state of Tamaulipas, between 
April 18th and 21st, 1910,” when he saw a flock of seventeen males, 
several of which were shot, but which unfortunately, owing to press 
of other work, were not made up into skins. 

The Southern Teal starts nesting in Louisiana early in March, 
for Mr. MclIlhenny writes, under date of April 3, 1919, “ Blue- 
winged Teal are now nesting here, and there are a number of broods 
of young already hatched,” and Mr. Worthen writes, “In regard to 
the breeding season of the Southern Blue-winged Teal, from what 
I know and what I can learn from the natives here who hunt, they 
have found the nest as early as the first of March... . I have found 
but one nest, and that was last April. I killed the male bird, and he 
was a fine specimen, with white running down the back of his head.” 

During the past year I have examined specimens in several col- 
lections, and am in receipt of data from a number of others scat- 
tered throughout the United States and Canada. Of the Teal 
examined, one hundred and thirty-eight were adult males in nuptial 
plumage, of which fifty-one were without doubt northern breeding 
birds, taken actually on the breeding ground or on the way there. 
Of these, twelve, taken in various places from North Carolina and 
Kansas to Manitoba, showed signs of southern blood, seven with 
the markings showing fairly distinctly, and five with the markings 
very faint. This intergradation, however, is only what should 


458 Kennarp, New Subspecies of Blue-winged Teal. lan 


be expected, in view of the mixup of the birds during the winter 
migration. 

Owing to the fact that the Southern Teal begin nesting before the 
Blue-winged Teal depart for the north, it is difficult to separate 
the southern breeding birds, but of twenty-eight typical Southern 
‘Teal examined, all taken in the south, eighteen were probably breed- 
ing birds, while of a series of ten birds that were certainly breed- 
ing, collected on the breeding grounds in the second week in May, 


after all the northern birds had departed, all showed the diagnostic 


markings very distinctly, in spite of the worn state of the plumage. 

Of the one hundred and thirty-eight Teal examined, only three 
typical Blue-winged Teal were apparently breeding in the south. 
One was taken at Ingram, Texas, and might have been a wounded 
bird; and the other two were taken in Arizona, where the two 
forms seem to meet, as both have been taken there during the 
breeding season. 

Regarding the plumage of the Blue-winged Teal, Mr. A. C. Bent, 
who has specialized somewhat on the subject, writes me that “the 
moult into the eclipse plumage begins in July. The eclipse plum- 
age is complete in August and often lasts through September.” 
In this plumage, so far as I know, the male Southern Teal is indis- 
tinguishable from the northern bird, and I have been unable to 
distinguish any difference between the females of the two forms 
at any season. This would seem to account for the fact that among 
all the specimens examined there were no autumn birds with the 
southern marking. Continuing, Mr. Bent says, “The moult out 
of the eclipse begins in September, but the progress of this moult 
is so slow that the full plumage is seldom complete before the middle 
of winter, and sometimes not until March.” As a usual thing, 
however, the Southern Teal seems to acquire its full plumage in 
February, when the diagnostic markings are most distinct. 

The typical Blue-winged Teal of the north is shown in Mr. 
Fuertes’ sketch, and of them, perhaps twenty per cent may have 
the white crescentic patch in front of the eye, elongated a trifle 
just above the eye, but this must not be confused with the marking 
of the Southern Teal, in which the white nuchal patch seems 
diagnostic. 

In the typical Southern Teal, shown by Mr. Fuertes, the cres- 


Oct. 


Bois | Kennarp, New Subspecies of Blue-winged Teal. 459 


centic patch in front of the eye is continued in a thin white line 
over the eye down to a conspicuous nuchal patch. The feathers 
along the lower side of the line have their upper halves white 
throughout their entire length, while the feathers along the upper 
side of the line have their lower halves white, thus accounting for 
the thinness of the line. The feathers of the nuchal patch are 
variegated, some of them part white, and some of them wholly 
white, and the markings on this bird should remain distinct until 
the moult into the eclipse plumage. According, however, to my 
data, and according to Mr. MclIlhenny’s observations also, only 
about one in six or seven of the Southern Teal is so heavily marked. 
In the majority of cases the diagnostic markings are extremely 
evanescent, many of the feathers having white tips only, which 
seem to wear away, until in June, and before the moult into the 
eclipse plumage takes place, nothing may remain of these markings 
but a few very worn white-tipped feathers at the nape. 

While, personally, I am not quite in sympathy with all the sub- 
specific separations in which some of our systematic ornithologists 
at present indulge, it appears to me that the evidence collected 
would seem to show that the Southern Teal, conspicuously marked 
as it is, and breeding as it does in a range well separated from its 
northern cousins, is certainly worthy of sub-specific separation, 
and I suggest that, with due acknowledgment to Mr. Mcllhenny, 
who seems to have been the first to accord the bird its proper recog- 
nition, we give it a descriptive name, as follows: 


Querquedula discors albinucha subsp. nov.— SouTHERN TEAL. 


Type.— From Grand Chenier, Cameron Parish, Louisiana. Adult male. 
Collection of F. H. Kennard, April 2, 1916. 

Characters.— Similar to Querquedula discors discors, except that in the 
nuptial plumage of the male, the crescentic white patch in front of the eye 
is continued over the eye in a thin superciliary line down to the nape, where 
it meets the line from the opposite side to form a white nuchal patch. 

Range.— Breeds commonly in Louisiana, and possibly as far east as 
Florida, also, undoubtedly, in Texas and Mexico, and possibly as far west 
as Arizona and Lower California. In winter it has been taken in the 
Antilles and as far south as Costa Rica. 


At first thought it seems odd that a bird so well marked as this 
should have escaped notice for so many years; but when one takes 


460 Houutster, Ring-necked Duck. lace 


into consideration the evanescence of the diagnostic markings, and 
the inaccessibility of the coastal marshes where the bird breeds, 
together with the fact that the few ornithologists who seem to have 
visited them were generally armed only with cameras, it is perhaps 
not so odd after all. 

In assembling the data upon which these notes are based, besides 
those already mentioned, to whom I am particularly indebted, my 
thanks are due to Messrs. Stanley C. Arthur, O. Bangs, Howarth S. 
Boyle, William Brewster, Jonathan Dwight, J. H. Flemming, 
Harry €. Oberholser, Wilfred H. Osgood, T. S. Palmer, H. 5. 
Swarth, P. A. Taverner, W. E. Clyde Todd, and John E. Thayer. 


| 


THE SYSTEMATIC POSITION OF THE RING-NECKED 
DUCK. 


BY N. HOLLISTER. 


TuE group of fuliguline Ducks now called Marila in the American 
Ornithologists’ Union ‘ Check-List’ has had its full share of nomen- 
clatorial shifts and changes, and many schemes have been proposed 
for its division into genera or subgenera. It has always seemed to 
me that the question of the number and rank of the named super- 
specific sections within this group is of little importance in com- 
parison to the error involved in the sequence given the species in 
the ‘ Check-List,’ where the Canvasback is placed between the 
Redhead and the Scaups, and the Ring-necked Duck is put at the 
end of the series in the typical subgenus Marila. 

From a study of the literature of American Ducks it is evident 
that the belief prevails that the Ring-necked Duck (Marila col- 
laris) is a Scaup, very closely related to the Greater and Lesser 
Bluebills (Marila marila and M. affinis), and this error is fostered 
by the arrangement of the species in the ‘ Check-List.’, One would 
indeed be led to believe from some accounts that the Ring-neck is 
not readily distinguished from the Lesser Scaup Duck (M. affinis) 


Snel Houutster, Ring-necked Duck. 461 
and that the brownish ring on the neck and the gray speculum are 
the only important characters of differentiation. A long acquaint- 
ance with the Ring-neck in Wisconsin, where the bird is at times 
one of the commonest ducks killed over decoys, has led me to 
associate the Ring-neck in a general way with the Redhead rather 
than with the Scaups. A recent examination of all the species of 
the group in the National Museum collection convinces me that I 
have been correct in considering collaris much more intimately 
related to the Redhead than to the Bluebills, and that it is indeed a 
Pochard! rather than a Scaup. One of the principal characters in 
general use for the separation of a subgenus Nyroca in Marila is 
the virtually parallel-sided bill of most species of Nyroca as opposed 
to the slightly broader-tipped bill of typical Marila (the Scaups). 
In this character the Ring-neck is distinctly Pochard instead of 
Scaup, and its continued association with the latter is surprising. 

The Ring-necked Duck is unquestionably the American repre- 
sentative of the Old World Tufted Duck (Marila fuligula), and the 
color of the speculum and the degree to which the birds are crested 
are the chief, although of course not the only, differences between 
them. Our Ring-neck is distinctly crested, the Tufted Duck has 
a complete crest, while a near relative in New Zealand (Marila 
novescelandie) has virtually no crest at all. In coloration collaris 
resembles certain Pochards quite as much if not actually more than 
it does the Scaups. It is not infrequent that the generalized 
coloration of the females, which is a good indication of the close 
relationship, makes it difficult for the sportsman to be certain if a 
freshly killed bird be a small Redhead ora large Ring-neck. Aside 
from its blackish head the male Ring-neck in no way very much 
resembles a Scaup in coloration, while it has several of the charac- 
teristic items of color and color pattern frequently met with in 
Pochards of various species. The Pochards usually have reddish 
heads, but the brownish neck-ring in collaris is probably the remains 
of a once reddish neck and head in the species; one of the Asiatic 
Pochards (Marila bacri) sometimes shows a considerable patch of 
reddish color in its otherwise blackish-green head. In connection 


1] use Pochard as the English equivalent for Nyroca of authors as opposed to the name 
Scaup for species of typical Marila. 


462 Houutster, Ring-necked Duck. lees 


with this persistence of the reddish mark on the neck of the male 
collaris it is interesting to note that the brown ring is completely 
hidden in life when the Duck is in repose. In the National Zoologi- 
cal Park, where the birds may be watched at close range, it often 
requires continuous observation of a swimming male Ring-neck for 
a considerable period to get a glimpse of the collar, which is seen 
then only when the head is extended. 

The elimination of collaris from the typical subgenus Marila 
would naturally bring up the question of the dismemberment of 
Marila into two or more genera, a problem which experienced 
ornithologists have attempted without happy results, or after long 
study have given up as impossible. Groups approximately equiva- 
lent to the Nyroca and Marila of the ‘Check-List’ have been recog- 
nized as genera by many authors, and recently the division of 
Marila into three full genera, Nyroca, Marila, and Aristonetta, 
has been advocated.! In effect of course this does nothing more 
than to raise the three subgenera of Marila, as recognized in the 
A. O. U. ‘ Check-List,’ to the rank of genera. The Ducks of this 
group seem to me, considering all the known forms, so intimately 
blended as hardly to justify even subgeneric division. I am well 
aware that numerous “ characters” may be found to divide them into 
groups, even to making several full genera; but such distinctions 
will always be a matter of personal opinion, and sometimes do not 
show sufficient concern for the apparent derivations of the forms. 
The genus Marila in an unrestricted sense is a fine example of a 
cosmopolitan, homogeneous group of birds, not large enough to be 
unwieldly — and why split it up? To be really consistent in such 
a division of Marila as has been suggested, the Redheads would 
have to be separated from Nyroca, as the type of this subgenus 
(Marila nyroca) differs as much in many features, and particularly 
in the form of the bill, from our Redhead and from Marila ferina 
(the type of Aythya Boie, 1822) as all do from the type species of 
the subgenus Marila (M. marila), which in turn differs very appre- 
ciably in the form of the bill from Marila affinis, the Lesser Scaup. 
As for “ Aristonetta,” I think that the European Pochard (Marila 
ferina) presents almost as perfect an intermediate, in the form and 


1 Oberholser, Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington, vol. 31, p. 98. June 29, 1918. 


<a 


ao | Houurster, Ring-necked Duck. 463 


proportions of the bill, between the Canvasback and the Redhead 
as one could expect to find among distinct species in nature. It 
would seem to me just as reasonable to associate ferina and valisi- 
neria together in‘a group called Aythya, with the Redhead excluded, 
as to put M. americana and ferina together, leaving the Canvas- 
back in a special genus of its own. Considering both color and 
structural characters, it would be difficult to say which species, 
the Canvasback or the Redhead, actually represents ferina on the 
American continent. 

The next edition of the A. O. U. ‘ Check-List’ will have two addi- 
tions to this group, the Tufted Duck (Marila fuligula) and the 
European Pochard (M. ferina); specimens of both these species 
having been captured on St. Paul Island.' It seems to me that the 
birds should be arranged in this next “Check-List’ in the following 
order: Canvasback, European Pochard, Redhead, Ring-necked 
Duck, Tufted Duck, Lesser Seaup Duck, Greater Scaup Duck. Per- 
sonally I do not see any way to separate Marila into valid genera, 
and I think the genus should be left without any subdivision at all; 
but if we must recognize intergrading subgenera or must have a 
distinctive name for every minor superspecific group, I hope that 
such divisions of Marila as are deemed necessary will not inter- 
fere with this apparently logical sequence for the species. 


1 Evermann, Auk, Vol. XXX, p. 17. January, 1913. 


464 Srone, Jacob Post Giraud, Jr. lave 


JACOB POST GIRAUD, JR., AND HIS WORKS. 


BY WITMER STONE. 


- 


Plate XVIII. 


Ir has always seemed to the writer a duty of present-day orni- 
thologists to save from oblivion as many of the facts as possible 
concerning the lives of those who long ago laid the foundations — 
of our science, and he has accordingly from time to time prepared 
biographical sketches of some of the older American ornithologists, 
concerning whom little or no record has appeared in our published 
literature. 

With the object of furthering this work Mr. William Dutcher, 
at the meeting of the Council of the American Ornithologists’ 
Union in New York City, in November, 1918, submitted to him 
some memoranda that he had collected relative to the life of J. P. 
Giraud, Jr., the pioneer writer on the birds of Long Island, a field 
in which Mr. Dutcher himself is a notable authority and a worthy 
successor to Giraud. A photograph of the ornithologist was also 
loaned for reproduction and forms the basis of the plate which 
accompanies the present sketch. 

Finding that there were several gaps in Mr. Dutcher’s notes, 
the preparation of the sketch has been delayed until search might 
be made for the missing information, and in this connection the 
writer is under great obligations to Dr. George Bird Grinnell and 
Dr. T. S. Palmer. Indeed, he feels that his part in the preparation 
of the sketch has been simply that of arranging and editing the 
materials that these gentlemen and Mr. Dutcher have brought 
together. 

Jacob Post Giraud, Jr., was born in New York City on August 
22, 1811. His father presumably bore the same name, as in the 
older city directories there are listed Jacob P. Giraud and Jacob 
P.,Jr., and as time went on the younger man occupied the same 
residence at No. 4 West 13th Street that was formerly the home 
of the elder. One of Giraud’s brothers was the grandfather of the 
late Daniel Giraud Elliot, while another brother, Daniel Giraud, 


THE AUK, VOL. XXXVI. PLATE XVIII. 


Photograph and Autograph of J. P. Giraud, Jr., pasted on the fly-leaf of a 
copy of ‘The Birds of Long Island,’ purchased in a book store in Philadelphia 
and now in the library of William Dutcher. 


WM. 


Vol. Rael 


1919 Srone, Jacob Post Giraud, Jr. 465 


was the man after whom Dr. Elliot was named. According to 
Dr. F. M. Chapman’s sketch of Dr. Elliot’s life (Auk, 1917, p. 1) 
the Giraud family was of French ancestry and settled originally 
at New Rochelle, N. Y., moving some two centuries ago to New 
York City. 

Giraud was engaged in business at 138 Front St. as a dealer in 
provisions and resided at 44 Laurel St., 26 Walker St., and at Ber- 
gen, N. J., removing later to 4 West 13th St. Dr. Grinnell finds 
his name in all the directories from 1837 to 1859, in which year or 
soon after he moved to Poughkeepsie, N. Y., where he seems to 
have become somewhat of a recluse, and he died at his residence 
on the South Road some two miles below Poughkeepsie on July 19,! 
1870. 

A letter received by Mr. Dutcher from the late George N. 
Lawrence, written in 1893, is the best account of Giraud that we 
have and is unquestionably reliable, as Mr. Lawrence knew him 
well. He writes: “Jacob P. Giraud was born in New York and his 
business was that of a dealer in provisions. It seemed to consist 
mainly of furnishing supplies to the shipping. He had not the 
lively, companionable manners of his friend P. Brasher, but was 
rather reserved. He was perfectly reliable, firm in his friend- 
ships and very decided in his opinions. : 

“The publication of his ‘Sixteen New Birds from Texas’ was 
quite a surprise, and established the fact that there was something 
of importance to be done in a scientific way besides making a 
collection. He did not skin birds, and everything in the way of 
taxidermy was done for him by John G. Bell. He was careless in 
examining bird skins, and generally they left his hands with the 
feathers disarranged. 

“After getting married he went to reside in New Jersey on the 
heights and became quite interested in gardening. He gained 
some notoriety from having succeeded in bringing two crops of 
corn to maturity on the same piece of ground in one season. 

“T was desirous to get his photograph, but he was averse to 
having it taken. After he moved to Poughkeepsie and gave his 


1 Amer. Jour. of Sci. and Arts, (1870, p, 293) although Poughkeepsie papers gave the 
date as July 18 (T. S. Palmer). 


466 Strong, Jacob Post Giraud, Jr. Ave 


collection to Vassar College, some of the young ladies induced him 
to sit for one, and a copy was sent me by Prof. Orton. After going 
to Poughkeepsie he did nothing more in ornithological investiga- 
tion, but occasionally delivered a lecture to the college students.” 

Besides presenting his collection to the college he also bequeathed 
to the institution $30,000, to be paid at the time of his wife’s death, 
and two other bequests for the completion of his collection of 
North American birds. In 1890, probably at the time of Mrs. 
Giraud’s death (she was living in 1887 at an advanced age), the 
courts revoked one-half of the main bequest and one of the addi- 
tional ones, leaving only $2,000 for the purchase of additional birds. 
With regard to the collection, Prof. Wm. B. Dwight, professor of 
Natural History at Vassar in 1887, wrote Mr. Dutcher that they 
had a catalogue in Giraud’s own handwriting prepared in October, 
1867, which consisted of a list of the specimens with an explana- 
tion of the scientific names, but with rarely any additional data. 
Occasionally a specimen was marked “from Long Island ”’ or “from 
Texas,” but nothing further. 

Prof. Spencer F. Baird, when as a young man he visited New 
York in 1841, met Giraud at the shop of John G. Bell, the taxi- 
dermist, and was invited to inspect his collection, which Baird 
pronounced the finest collection of American birds that he had 
ever seen. Giraud gave Baird a number of specimens of shore 
birds and others which he did not have and promised him more 
the following season. Baird was at this time eighteen years of 
age, while Giraud was a man of thirty. 

Giraud’s contributions to ornithological literature were two in 
number, both notable works and both today rated among the rarest 
books of their kind. 

The first was entitled: “A Description of Sixteen New Species 
of North American Birds described in the Annals of the New York 
Lyceum of Natural History. By Jacob P. Giraud, Jr. Collected 
in Texas, 1838. New York. George F. Nesbitt, printer, Tontine 
Building, corner of Wall and Water Streets. 1841.” 

It is a folio of eighteen leaves and eight plates, neither paged 
nor numbered. Of the sixteen species described only fourteen 
are figured. The plates are drawn by “A. Halsey Esqur.” dnd 
the lithography is by N. Carrier, 2 Spruce St., N. Y. This work 
has been the cause of no little controversy, since, on account of 


‘Vol. XXXVI] Sronn, Jacob Post Giraud, Jr. 467 


its rarity, the new names proposed in it were not generally recog- 
nized,' while the fact that the birds were really obtained in Texas 
was almost immediately questioned. While many of them have 
since been actually found in the United States, either in Texas or 
Arizona, it is certain that the collection as a whole never came 
from Texas. All of the species occur in Mexico, but it is question- 
able whether they all came from any one locality in that republic, 
since some of them, as shown by the types, all but three of which 
are preserved in the U. S. National Museum, represent races which 
are found only in southern Mexico. In spite of the widely expressed 
doubt as to the correctness of the locality, Giraud, according to 
Dr. Coues, stoutly maintained to the day of his death that they 
were taken in Texas. He never described them in the “Annals of 
the New York Lyceum,’ as he states on the title page, nor did he 
ever present any information as to who collected them or how 
they came into his possession. The text to the plates consists of 
descriptions only, with a line or two of dedication in the case of 
species which were named after individuals. Before the descrip- 
tions, however, there is an introductory page on which are given the 
names of other species contained in his “Texan ” collections. This 
page is as follows: “In adding to my collection a number of speci- 
mens of various genera and species received from Texas, I dis- 
covered many of those species procured by Dr. Townsend and others 
during their ‘journey across the Rocky Mountains,’ which induces 
me to believe that many of these species that visit the Columbia 
River pass the winter in Texas. Figured and described in Audu- 
bon’s American Ornithology.” Then follows the list: 


“Harris’s Woodpecker. Picus Harrisit Audubon. 

Red Shafted Woodpecker. Colaptes Mexicanus Swainson, 
Picus Mexicanus Audubon. 

Black Headed Grosbeak. Coccoborus Melanocephalus Swain- 
son, Fringilla Melanocephalus Audubon. 

Evening Grosbeak. Coccothraustes Vespertina Swainson and 
Richardson, Fringilla Vespertina, Cooper, Bonaparte, Audu- 
bon. 

Crimson Fronted Finch. Pyrrhula Frontalis Bonaparte 
and Nuttall, Fringilla Frontalis Audubon. 


1P. L. Sclater published an account of it (P- 7S. 1855, p. 65) with the identity of 
such of the species as had been previously described. 


J. 


468 Strong, Jacob Post Giraud, Jr. Aue 


Western Blue Bird.  Szalica occidentalis Townsend, Audubon. 

Say’s Fly Catcher. T'yrannula Saya Swainson and Richardson, 
Muscicapa Saya Bonaparte, Nuttall, Audubon. 

Rocky Mountain Fly Catcher. Tyrannula Nigricans Swain- 
son, Muscicapa Nigricans Audubon. 

Audubon’s Wood Warbler. Sylvia Audubonit Townsend 
and Audubon. 

Yellow Headed Troopial. Angelaius Xanthocephalus Swainson 
and Richardson, [ctertus Xanthocephalus Bonaparte, Nuttall 
and Audubon. 

Arctie Blue Bird. Svalia Artica Swainson, Nuttall, Audubon. 

Violet Green Swallow. Hirurdo Thalassinus Swainson, 

Hirurdo Thalassina Audubon. 

Townsends Wood Warbler.  Sylvicola Townsendii Nuttall, 
Sylvia Townsendii Audubon. 

Hermit Wood Warbler. Sylvicola Occidentalis Townsend, 
Sylvia Occidentalis Audubon. 

Arkansas Fly Catcher. Tyrannus Verticalis Say, Muscicapa 
Verticalis Audubon, Bonaparte, Nuttall. 

Brown Song Finch. Fringilla Crinerea Gmel and Audubon. 

Oregon Snow Bird. Fringilla Oregona Townsend and Audu- 
bon.! 


“With the present heretofore undescribed species, which I have 
the gratification of introducing into the American Fauni. 
Measurement taken from dried Specimens. 


= J. P. Grraup, Jr 


For the convenience of those who may not have access to the origi- 
nal volume, the list of species as given in the text headings, with their 
present-day equivalents as determined by Mr. Robert Ridgway 
(Birds of North and Middle America), is appended. The plates 
contain English names only which differ sometimes in spelling: 


“Audubon’s Oriole, Icterus audubonii [no figure] = [cterus 
melanocephalus audubonii, Audubon’s Oriole. 

Texan Fly Catcher, Muscicapa texensis = Myiozetetes texensis 
tevensis, Giraud’s Flycatcher. 

Lawrence’s Fly Catcher, Muscicapa lawrenceii = Myiarchus 
lawrenceit lawrenceti, Lawrence’s Flycatcher. 


1 Errors and misspellings copied verbatim. 


Vol. XXXVI] Sronn, Jacob Post Giraud, Jr. 469 


Buff Breasted Fly Catcher, Muscicapa fulvifrons = Empi- 
donax fulvifrons fulvifrons, Fulvous Flycatcher. 

Halsey’s Warbler, Sylvia halseii = Dendroica nigrescens, Black- 
throated Gray Warbler (autumn female). 

Derham’s Fly Catcher, Muscicapa derhamii = Myioborus mini- 
atus miniatus, Red-bellied Redstart. 

Bell’s Fly Catcher, Muscicapa belli = Basileuterus belli belli, 
Bell’s Warbler. 

White Cheeked Titmouse, Parus leucotis = Ergaticus ruber, 
Red Warbler. 

Texan Finch, Fringilla texensis = Astragalinus psaltria mexi- 
canus, Mexican Goldfinch. 

Azure Capped Manakin, Pipra galericulata = Euphonia ele- 
gantissima, Blue-hooded Euphonia. 

White Shouldered Fly Catcher, Museicapa leucomus = Seto- 
phaga picta picta, Painted Redstart. 

Brazier’s Fly Catcher, Muscicapa brasierii = Basileuterus 
culicivorus brasherii, Brasher’s Warbler. 

Red Fronted Fly Catcher, Muscicapa rubrifrons = Cardellina 
rubrifrons, Red-faced Warbler. 

Olive Backed Warbler, Sylvia olivacea = Peucedramus oliva- 
ceus, Olive Warbler. 

White Throated Wren, Certhia albifrons = Catherpes mexi- 
canus albifrons, Giraud’s Canyon Wren. 

Lesser Shore Lark, Alauda minor. [no figure]= Otocoris alpe- 
stris chrysolema, Mexican Horned Lark.” 


It will be noticed from the above that no less than nine of the 
sixteen were really undescribed species and still bear today the 
specific names which Giraud bestowed upon them, while seven 
have been found to be inhabitants of either Texas or Arizona. 

A word about the men after whom Giraud named a num- 
ber of his new species may not be out of place. All were 
his personal and ornithological friends. Audubon and Law- 
rence need no introduction. Abraham Halsey, who drew the 
plates, was according to Giraud, the president of the Brook- 
lyn Lyceum of Natural History; Derham he refers to 
as “the lamented Cassimere H. Derham.” In the ‘Annals 
of the New York Lyceum’ of which society he was a mem- 


470 Strong, Jacob Post Giraud, Jr. lige 


ber, his name appears as H.C. DeRham. The failure to capitalize 
the second part of his name in Giraud’s work has resulted in the bird 
being sometimes quoted as Durhami,so anxious are some to emend 
names to a supposedly correct form! John G. Bell was the well- 
known taxidermist, “devoted to natural history,” to quote Giraud, 
and Philip Brasher was a close friend and collector of Long Island 
birds who apparently did not appear as the author of any orni- 
thological contributions. Hisnamealso suffered two misspellings, 
as may be seen above. The appearance of Giraud’s own name in 
connection with the Texan Horned Lark Otocoris alpestris giraudi 
in later works, requires a word of explanation. Mr. Henshaw in 
his review of the Horned Larks (Auk, 1884, p. 260) states that this 
Texan race is the bird that Giraud described as Alauda minor, as 
he ascertained by examining the type, but this name being pre- 
occupied he renamed it in honor of its original describer. Mr. 
Ridgway, however, examining the same type many years later, 
decides that it belongs to the Mexican race O. a. chrysolema. Be 
this as it may, I am sure no one will begrudge Giraud the well- 
merited recognition that was in error conferred upon him. 

Giraud’s other work “ The Birds of Long Island,” published by 
Wiley and Putnam, 161 Broadway, New York, in 1844, was the 
best piece of local ornithological work that had appeared up to 
that time, and is still the leading authority upon Long Island birds, 
though of course important additions have been made to the list 
of species by later ornithologists who have followed in Giraud’s 
footsteps. 

The work, moreover, is of great historic value today, since it gives 
us a reliable picture of water-bird life in early times, when many 
species now rare were of common occurrence, while there is fre- 
quent incidental mention of birds from other parts of the eastern 
United States. He who possesses a copy of this classic with the 
gilded representation of the Heath Hen on the back of the cover 
may well count himself fortunate. Dr. Elliott Coues apparently did 
not estimate this work of Giraud’s at its true value in his ‘ Bibli- 
ography,’ as he dismisses it with very curt mention. His remark, 
“Audubon’s classification and nomenclature,” moreover, is not 
strictly correct, and several species not mentioned by Audubon 
are added. That the latter fact escaped Dr. Coues’ keen eye is 
rather remarkable. The changes from Audubon’s nomenclature 


— 


Vol. ol 


1919 Srone, Jacob Post Giraud, Jr. 471 


are the substitution of Turdus minor Gmelin for 7. solitarius as 
the name of the Hermit Thrush, and the recognition of the generic 
name Calidris for the Sanderling. 

Anas penelope, the European Widgeon,is added to the fauna of 
North America on the basis of a specimen secured by Mr. George 
N. Lawrence, while two new species are described, Turdus olivaceus, 
the Olive-backed Thrush, and Fuligula minor, the Lesser Scaup 
Duck. In the latter case Giraud was anticipated by afew years 
by Eyton, who described the bird as F. affinis, while in the former 
he unfortunately selected a name that was already in use for 
another bird, so that neither of his technical names stand, though 
both of the vernacular names that he proposed are still in use. 

In view of the rather crude nature of the text of his earlier work, 
as may be judged from the introduction quoted above, the style 
of ‘‘ The Birds of Long Island ” is rather surprising, and one wonders 
if it did not receive some editorial supervision from another hand. 
This, however, would in no way affect the value of the contents nor 
the credit due the author. 

It is a favorite, though somewhat dangerous practice, to specu- 
late upon the influence of one man upon the career of another. 
Foster in his bibliography of the writings of George N. Lawrence 
says: “Fortunate was it for ornithological science when, in 1841, 
Prof. Baird and Mr. George N. Lawrence formed an acquaintance- 
ship, which soon ripened into a close and lasting intimacy. Stimu- 
lated by this, Mr. Lawrence then commenced the scientific study 
of birds.” Mr. Foster evidently did not stop to think that, on the 
occasion of the meeting he describes, Lawrence was a man of 
thirty-five years of age and the possessor of a fine cabinet of birds, 
while Baird was a youth of eighteen, on one of his first trips from 
his home in Carlisle, where he had made a small collection but had 
as yet published nothing!!' If the meeting produced any result, it 
was rather due to the influence of Lawrence upon young Baird, 
and doubtless the youth was even more influenced by Giraud, 
whose collection he saw and praised so highly. Moreover if we 
may be pardoned for engaging in speculation, Lawrence’s mention 
of the publication of Giraud’s “Sixteen New Species,’ in his letter 
to Mr. Dutcher, as being a surprise and establishing the fact that 


1JIn this connection attention might be called to the brief obituary notice of Giraud 
in the Amer. Jour. of Science and Arts, 1870, p. 293; in which he is referred to as a 
particular friend of Alexander Wilson. As Giraud was but two years old at the time 
of Wilson’s death the intimacy could hardly have been close! 


472 Movustey, Birds of Hatley, Quebec. ene 


there was something of importance to be done in a scientific way 
besides the making of a collection, is significant. Only a few years 
later Lawrence, who up to then had published nothing, began to 
issue the first of the long series of ornithological papers and deserip- 
tions of new species which made him famous. Audubon at this 
time must have dominated the ornithological field, and perhaps 
Giraud, in launching out on his own account, did even more by his 
example, to advance ornithological science than by the actual 
value of his publications. 


FURTHER NOTES AND OBSERVATIONS ON THE BIRDS 
OF HATLEY, STANSTEAD COUNTY, QUEBEC, 1918: 


BY H. MOUSLEY. 


In the present paper I propose to adopt the same principle as 
in my previous one (Auk, Vol. XXXV, 1918, pp. 289-310), 2.e., of 
first giving a general account of the season, following this up with 
an annotated list of the five new species added during the year 
while carrying on the numbering from where it left off in 1917. 

In addition to these five new species, the breeding list has been 
increased from seventy-seven to eighty-three species, the six new 
ones, whose nests, eggs or young had not been previously taken, 
being the Virginia Rail, Ruby-throated Hummingbird, Wood Pewee, 
Purple Finch, Bay-breasted Warbler and House Wren, whilst cir- 
cumstances point to the fact of the Olive-sided Flycatcher, Cape 
May Warbler and Golden-crowned Kinglet having bred also, so 
that a dagger may now be added to their names in the list already 
given of the birds to be found at Hatley, as well as a star to the 
above-mentioned six species. 

Now on reference to the above paper it will be seen that the 
months of November and December, 1917, had been conspicuous 
for the almost entire absence of winter birds, and as the intense cold 


Oe ial Movustey, Birds of Hatley, Quebec. 473 


still prevailed during the first few months of 1918 it hardly seemed 
likely that I would obtain any early records, and yet how often 
the unexpected happens. The last few days of 1917 had seen the 
thermometer down to as low as minus twenty-two degrees, with a 
rise, however, in the New Year on January the second, to zero. On 
the ninth of this month a Briinnich’s Murre was picked up to the 
south of the village in an exhausted condition, dying the next day. 
This bird no doubt had been driven in by the easterly gales that 
raged in the early part of December, as two others were obtained 
(as already recorded) about the middle of that month at North 
Hatley. It was mounted by Mr. Greer for its captor, Mr. Will 
Hunter of Hatley, and weighed 1 lb. 6 0z., being in an emaciated 
condition. From the ninth to the twenty-fifth nothing was seen 
except a few small flocks of Snow Buntings, but on the latter date 
a Northern Shrike paid a visit to my garden, and I think took toll of 
an English Sparrow. A few days previous to this or, to be precise, 
on the twenty-second, I was looking over some birds at Mr. Greer’s, 
and had the pleasure of identifying a Ring-billed Gull which was 
then in the flesh. The bird had been taken in a marsh adjoining 
Lake Massawippi, and not so far from the village of the same name, 
somewhere about the ninth of December, it having been driven 
in also, no doubt, by one of the severe easterly gales already referred 
to. The bird, which was to be mounted for Mr. E. H. English of 
Massawippi, was a young one, apparently in the first winter plum- 
age, being irregularly mottled and with other immature traces be- 
sides. It has already been recorded in ‘The Auk,’ Vol. XXXV, 
1918, No. 2, p. 241. 

Nothing further of interest occurred until February 25, when 
the first Crows were heard, this date forming a record one, as my 
previous earliest was March 1, 1915 and 1917. On the last day of 
the month a large flock of Snow Buntings was observed, also two 
Prairie Horned Larks, this date being just two days ahead of any 
previous year. 

More than a week now elapsed before the first real surprise came 
in the shape of a rosy male Purple Finch and three females. On 
March the ninth, or nearly six weeks ahead of the previous earliest 
record, April 19, 1916. The next arrival was a Robin on the twen- 
tieth, and the day following a Bluebird and Song Sparrow, all of 


474 Moustey, Birds of Hatley, Quebec. lees 


these three being records by just a few days, the most being six in 
the case of the Song Sparrow. 

On the twenty-second another surprise came, a Marsh Hawk and 
Meadowlark being seen on that day, both of these records curi- 
ously enough being twenty days ahead of time, the previous earliest 
being April 11, 1917, in the case of the former, and April 11, 1915, 
in that of the latter. Bronzed Grackles and Red-shouldered Hawks 
were also seen on this date, and the day following a Junco and Red- 
winged Blackbird, and a Migrant Shrike on the thirty-first, but 
none of these call for any special notice. 

Phoebes,~ Tree Sparrows, Goldfinches, Savannah and Vesper 
Sparrows as well as a Sharp-shinned Hawk were seen between 
April the first and sixth, and on the seventh I obtained my first 
spring record for Fox Sparrows, having only seen them in the fall 
previously. Another surprise came on the eighth, a Flicker being 
noted ten days ahead of previous records, and on the twenty-fourth 
I found a Migrant Shrike’s nest with five eggs, my previous earliest 
being May 10, 1916, for a full set. 

The month of May was responsible for many interesting items, 
not the least being the abundance of many of the Warblers, espe- 
cially the Blackburnian, Black-throated Blue, Black-throated Green, 
and Canada, as well as a fair sprinkling of the Nashville and a few 
Northern Parulas. The Tennessee, Pine, Yellow Palm and Wilson’s 
Warblers, however, did not put in an appearance, or at least if they 
did I failed to detect them, although they were all recorded in the 
fall migration. It may be interesting in passing to compare my 
experience with that of Mr. Robert Barbour and others as recorded 
in ‘The Auk,’ Vol. XXXV, 1918, No. 4, pp. 484-485; wherein it is 
complained of the general scarcity of birds this year and especially 
of the Warblers both at Montclair, New Jersey, and also in Central 
Park, New York. 

Cowbirds were again scarce, and no instance came under my 
notice of any Warbler or other species having been victimized. 
White-crowned Sparrows reverted to the old order of things and 
were scarce this spring, the only one seen being on the fourteenth 
in my garden, although in the fall they appeared (for them) in 
goodly numbers again. 

On the twenty-fourth one male Indigo Bunting was seen about 


| Moustey, Birds of Hatley, Quebec. 475 
three miles to the north of Ayers Cliff, also four Yellow Warblers 
as well as a Meadowlark. As regards the latter species, things have 
not materialized as I had expected, for, although their very early 
arrival gave promise of an increased number of breeding pairs, 
I have failed to notice them, in fact the bird mentioned above is 
the last record for the year so far as my own observation goes, 
although Mr. Greer saw one on November 12. The pair that 
nested in the meadow near my house in 1917 failed to do so this 
year, although they frequented the same ground from March 22 
to April 20 and then disappeared, probably to carry out the 
decree of nature by extending their range in these parts, as they 
certainly are new birds to the area within recent years. On the 
twenty-seventh a pair of Warbling Vireos visited our orchard, and 
I had hopes of their remaining to breed, but they left in the after- 
noon. ‘Two days later the unmistakable notes of a Whip-poor-will 
were heard, and on the thirty-first or last day of the month I 
obtained a male example of a Black-poll Warbler out of an apple 
tree in our orchard, this elevation being rather over 1,000 feet above 
sea level. This example made the second only seen in eight years, 
the previous one being near Ayers Cliff on May 28 of last year as 
already recorded, the elevation of that locality not being much 
over half that of the present one. 

The advent of June brought high hopes of an abnormal nesting 
season for Warblers, and such proved to be the case, for never in 
my experience have I located so many breeding pairs of Black- 
throated Blue, Black-throated Green, Blackburnian and Canada 
Warblers. In addition to finding the nests and eggs of all 
the above (one nest of the Canada Warbler being a beautifully 
domed example similar in every respect to a miniature Ovenbird’s), 
I also came across those of the Northern Parula, Magnolia, Chest- 
nut-sided and Maryland Yellow-throat. 

The greatest red-letter day of all, however, was June 24, when I 
saw for the first time in summer a pair of Bay-breasted Warblers 
and later on discovered their nest and set of four eggs. This 
nest was entirely different from that of any other Warbler I have 
come across so far, being characterized by its large size and the 
irregularity of outline given to it by the long coniferous twigs which 
composed its exterior, some of these twigs measuring 7} inches. 


476 Movustey, Birds of Hatley, Quebec. Ree 
It was situated in a small fir tree close against the trunk, nine 
feet above the ground and three feet from the top of the tree, 
and was composed outwardly of the above-mentioned coniferous 
twigs as well as grasses, being lined inside with finer grasses and a 
large quantity of very fine black rootlets. The site was only seven 
yards from the center of a logging road, and although the nest 
was in a somewhat exposed position it blended so well with its 
natural surroundings that I was a long time in finding it. The 
eggs, which were four in number, were also of a distinctive type and 
different from any Warbler’s eggs that I had hitherto found. 
The ground color was bluish green spotted with brown, three of 
them having confluent blotches at the larger end mixed with lilac, 
while the fourth was nearly evenly marked all over, with no 
decided zone at the larger end. The average dimensions of the 
set are .65x .54, the short length as compared with the width 
giving them a rather rotund appearance. The dimensions of the 
nest irrespective of the spread of the coniferous twigs are as follows, 
viz.: outside diameter 33, inside 23+ inches; outside depth 23, 
inside 14 inches. Both the nest and set of eggs I presented to the 
Victoria Memorial Museum at Ottawa. 

The locating of a pair of Cape May Warblers from June the 
eleventh to the twenty-sixth, under circumstances which left no 
doubt as to their breeding, was also another source of gratification, 
while the nesting again of the little Northern Parula was no less 
pleasing. A curious fact in connection with the Cape May and 
Bay-breasted Warblers was, that I almost failed to detect them 
during the migration, only one example of the former being noted 
on May the fifteenth (the following up of which gave me my first 
specimen of that glorious little orchid Calypso bulbosa) and one of 
the latter on May the twenty-first, so that their subsequent breed- 
ing was totally unexpected, and more especially so as I had never 
seen either of them here before in the summer. 

Yellow Warblers were seen on several occasions, more especially 
near Ayers Cliff, and the same remark applies equally well to the 
Water Thrush (Seiurus. n. noveboracensis). The almost entire 
absence of Redstarts, at least on the ground over which I ranged, 
seemed somewhat remarkable, and I did not see many pairs of 
Chestnut-sided Warblers either. Nashvilles were certainly not as 


aOR 


Vol. caine 


1919 Mousey, Birds of Hatley, Quebec. 477 


numerous during the migration as last year, but I noted two or three 
pairs breeding as against only one last year. Speaking of the 
nesting of many of the Warblers, it seemed to me that the dates 
were quite a week or ten days in advance of previous years, a 
nest of the Black-throated Blue, for instance, containing much 
incubated eggs this year on June the eleventh, whereas in 1916 a 
nest found on June the nineteenth contained perfectly fresh ones. 
Black-billed Cuckoos were first noticed on the third near our 
orchard, and I have seen and heard them oftener since than in 
previous years, with the exception of 1912, when I found three 
nests. That beautiful songster, the Rose-breasted Grosbeak, of 
which I have only found one nest so far, certainly bred here again 
this year, a singing male being located in alarge wood throughout 
the month of June, but its nest escaped detection. In this same 
wood and period also, a male Scarlet Tanager poured forth his 
fine notes, and added my own confirmation to that of Mr. Greer’s 
that at rare intervals it may be found breeding here also. The 
status of the bird in these parts during the years 1836-39 must 
have been very different from what it is today, for I find that Gosse 
in his ‘The Canadian Naturalist,’ 1840 (referred to in the anno- 
tated note on the Passenger Pigeon), speaks of having seen many 
birds in the ploughed fields and pastures at the end of May, one 
day in particular in his orchard there being scarcely a moment in 
which three or four might not be seen within a few rods of each 
other! As a present-day contrast to the above I may say I have 
never seen more than two together, and my total record for the 
past eight years consists of six birds only, five males and one 
female. The Rose-breasted Grosbeak Gosse does not mention at 
all, so probably it was quite as scarce then as it is now. The num- 
ber of birds enumerated in the work, however, cannot have been 
by any means complete, as from a list I have made there appear to 
be only 67 species recorded as against my 168 at the present time. 
The Baltimore Oriole apparently was an unknown bird here then, 
for Gosse distinctly states that he was unacquainted with it; a 
most striking fact, when we consider that today it is one of the 
features of almost if not every village. Of the Warblers only two 
species are spoken of with any degree of confidence, and strange to 
say they are two of the rarer class, 2. e. the Blackburnian and Bay- 


478 Movustey, Birds of Hatley, Quebec. Ges 
breasted Warblers, both of which today are still regular migrants 
if not regular breeders also, at least as regards the first named. 

On June ninth and sixteenth I saw a Pine Siskin and had 
previously seen one on May the sixteenth, a somewhat interesting 
fact in view of their total absence during the winter, but the same 
thing occurred in 1917, when on May 31 I shot an example out 
of a small flock, the birds not having been observed during the 
winter of 1916-17. 

The eighth and eleventh of the month were both red-letter days, 
for on the former I found the Purple Finch breeding for the first 
time and on the latter added the Olive-sided Flycatcher to my list, 
a pair being under constant observation from this date to the 
thirtieth, and again in the first week of August. My efforts to 
discover their nest were unavailing, however, although it was evi- 
dent they were breeding, as on two occasions I observed one of the 
birds trying to break off small twigs from a tall hemlock tree. 

Just previous to the eleventh I flushed a female Ruffed Grouse 
with her brood of chicks, the only lot seen during the summer. 

Shortly after the middle of the month, or to be exact on the 
twenty-first, I found my first Wood Pewee’s nest, but as it was 
about 12 feet out on a slender bough of a large maple tree, and 25 
feet above the ground, I had to content myself with a photograph 
of its location. The nest was over a fork, and being composed 
outwardly of lichens it looked exactly like a natural swelling or 
knot in the branch. 

On the twenty-fourth I came across a nest and set of four eggs 
of the Olive-backed Thrush, this apparently being about my usual 
yearly allowance. Red-eyed Vireos were more in evidence again, 
and I came across three or four nests during the month, but none 
of the Warbling or Blue-headed were found, although I had 
seen a few pairs of each earlier in the season, and had hopes that 
it was going to be another “Vireo” year similar to that of 1912. 
For the next fortnight or until July 15, nothing of particular in- 
terest occurred, but on this date a number of immature Golden- 
crowned Kinglets were observed, this date being three weeks ahead 
of any previous record, and may possibly be taken as indicative of 
the birds having bred in the district. Strange to say, they were 
not noted in the spring migration, although Ruby-crowned Kinglets 


pe | Moustey, Birds of Hatley, Quebec. 479 
were somewhat numerous. On the evening of the twentieth a 
Catbird was heard ‘‘mewing” at 8.45 p.m., this being one of the 
very few birds observed, the other records being earlier in the season 
and near Ayers Cliff, where the bird is more usually found than 
around Hatley. I did not locate a single nest. 

Perhaps it may not be out of place to here mention that the fol- 
lowing birds have been more than usually numerous, viz.: Chicka- 
dees, Goldfinches, Baltimore Orioles, Kingbirds, Purple Finches, 
and Ruby-throated Hummingbirds, while Red-breasted Nut- 
hatches have been entirely absent, my last record going as far back 
as October 3, 1917, since which time up to the present date of 
writing (July 28) I have not seen a single example. Its habits 
here certainly seem comparable to those of the Crossbills, eccen- 
tric, erratic, irregularly sporadic, as the late Mr. Ora W. Knight 
says of the latter birds in his ‘ Birds of Maine.’ 

On the twenty-eighth a young Sparrow Hawk was shown to me 
in the flesh, which had been shot a day or two before, and the 
party obtaining it said there were several more, evidently a family 
party. This evidence further corroborates that of Mr. Greer, who 
saw the parent birds with young near Waterville last year. The 
month of August opened auspiciously, for on the first I came across 
the Olive-sided Flycatcher again, on the outskirts of the same wood 
where I had previously located it in June, only rather more than 
a mile to the north of the former spot. I had visited this place 
purposely, as I was anxious to see whether my House Wrens of 
August 6, 1917, would return this fall. I did not come across them 
on this occasion, but three days later or on the fourth I located two 
of them in almost the identical spot as last year, and also saw the 
Olive-sided Flycatcher again. The day previously I saw a Prairie 
Horned Lark, this being the latest date so far that I had noticed 
the bird in the fall, but later on another example was seen by my 
son on October the twelfth, he being well acquainted with the bird. 

On the tenth I again visited the Wren locality, and had the very 
great and unexpected pleasure of finding their nest, with four fully 
fledged young. The site, which was a quarter of a mile or so away 
from any house, was on the outskirts of the wood already referred to, 
and the nest was located some eighteen inches down from the top 
of a small hollow cedar stump, which stood four feet, six inches 


480 Movustey, Birds of Hatley, Quebec. (ae 


above the ground. The inside of this little stump seemed fitted by 
nature for the home of a Wren, for the branches where they had 
been cut off from the outside extended through the bark to about 
the center of the stump, and where two or three came together 
from opposite sides they formed a natural support, of which the 
Wrens had taken advantage, not only for the foundation of their 
nest to rest upon, but also to hold up the dome. The supports 
of this latter (which was two inches in height, and composed of 
small fir twigs and some feathers) were sixteen inches down from 
the top of the stump, the inside diameter of which was 3} inches. 
At one side of the dome, of course, there was an aperture allowing 
the ingress and egress of the birds to the bed of the nest below, 
which was 24 inches from the underside of the dome. Below the 
bed to the foundation supports there was a further space of 33 
inches, which was made up of small fir twigs, pithy chips, feathers 
and some horsehair for a lining, upon which rested the four fully 
fledged young. It will thus be seen that the total height of this 
nest from the foundation to the top of the dome was eight inches, 
but there will always be a lurking suspicion in my mind as to 
whether the dome was really intentional or only accidental. It 
could easily have been the latter, for the supports holding it up may 
possibly have formed an obstacle to the easy conveyance of mate- 
rials to the nest below, and so in time a number of twigs may have 
had to be left behind by the birds, and so have formed an unin- 
tentional dome. However, this is one of those little nature prob- 
lems that are constantly presenting themselves, and of which, as 
in the present case, there appears to be no immediate solution. 

On the fifteenth I had yet another surprise, which enabled me to 
add one more breeding bird to my list, in the shape of the Vir- 
ginia Rail, a parent bird of which was seen in a little marsh near 
Hatley Centre accompanied by her brood of young. This is the 
second time only that I have come across these Rails, the last 
occasion being in July, 1915, when I saw two of them in “ the marsh” 


near my house. It is somewhat difficult this year to say exactly 


when the fall migration of warblers set in, as apparently there was 
no very decided wave, but I fancy it commenced on August the 
twentieth; at all events this is the first occasion on which I appear 
to have any decided increase of entries in my notebook. From this 


ae 


ve ale Moustey, Birds of Hatley, Quebec. 481 


date, however, to the end of the month things were very quiet 
again in the Warbler line, and it was not until the first week in 
September that there was another marked increase. On the 
twenty-first of August Nighthawks were seen at Ayers Cliff, this 
being my earliest date for the species, and two days later a Red- 
breasted Nuthatch was rfoted, my last record, as already mentioned, 
dating as far back as October 3, 1917. This day was also memor- 
able, as I was able to add yet another new species to my list in the 
shape of the Philadelphia Vireo. 

On the twenty-sixth, while en route to climb Mount Orford, 
2,860 feet, the following birds were noted, viz.: Broad-winged Hawk 
at Ayers Cliff, Loon and Sora near Magog, and an Osprey near 
the top of the mountain. All of these birds were of interest to me, 
the first being new to my list, although it might have been included 
before, as I know I must have seen the species on two or three other 
oceasions. The Loon I had not seen here before, although it occurs 
regularly on Lake Massawippi in the fall, while the Sora is an 
uncommon summer visitant at Hatley, one nest so far being all 
that has fallen to my lot. The Osprey also up to now had only 
been noted in the spring migration, one or two having generally 
paid a visit to “the marsh” for the past four years during the early 
part of May. Nothing of any particular interest was noticed for 
the next few days, with the exception of a pair of Pine Warblers 
and a Yellow-bellied Flycatcher until September the third, when a 
male Wilson’s Warbler was seen at close quarters, and another on 
the eighth, together with a female, the latter being the first I have 
seen here so far. On this latter date a Cape May Warbler was 
also seen, and on the following day an immature Tennessee Warbler 
was shot, which constituted my first fall record for the species. 
Another interesting item noted on this same day was an example 
of the Acadian Chickadee, a specimen of which was obtained a 
few days later, or on the eleventh, while others were recorded up 
to the fifteenth, after which they disappeared and were not seen 
again during the year. On the night of the tenth there was a severe 
frost, in fact, this has been an abnormal year for frosts, one on the 
eighteenth and nineteenth of June causing considerable damage 
to the bean crop. After this last one in September the weather, 
which had been very dry for several weeks (causing many of the 


482 Movsuey, Birds of Hatley, Quebec. Ries 
wells and nearly all the brooks to run dry in August), broke down, 
and a period of nearly incessant rain set in, which lasted well into 
the middle of October. This state of things made bird hunting 
no sinecure, it being next to impossible to locate small Warblers or 
any other birds for that matter in a downpour of rain. However, 
I did fairly well considering, as another Broad-winged Hawk was 
noted on the fourteenth as well as a Yellow Palm Warbler, the only 
one seen in either the spring or fall migration. The most interest- 
ing event, however, was the locating of a few Blackpoll Warblers 
between the eighteenth and thirtieth of the month, these birds 
being first noted in the orchard near our house, and afterwards 
along the roadside, an example on one occasion being taken to 
insure correct identification. This is the first time of meeting 
them in the fall, and in the spring, as already stated, only two males 
have so far been located. The scarcity of this species is an inter- 
esting problem to which I have drawn attention in last year’s notes. 
On the afternoon of the twentieth a flock of twenty-six Blue Jays 
passed at close range. It is not often that one sees so many of these 
birds together, the greatest previous number I can call to mind 
being seven. With Robins, however, it is a different matter, for 
on the twenty-third I saw a large flock, consisting of two hundred 
or more, which frequented exactly the same locality as they did 
last year, only the date was rather later then, it being the middle 
of October. Brown Creepers put in an appearance about now, 
these little birds being by no means plentiful here. White-crowned 
Sparrows were also seen on the twenty-third and remained until 
October 14, being more abundant at this time than in former 
years. A flock of American Pipits, consisting of seventy-five to 
one hundred birds, was seen on October 4, but they only remained 
a few days, being gone by the eighth. Sparrows of all kinds were 
very plentiful just about now, the Tree and Fox putting in an 
appearance on the tenth and twelfth respectively. Of the latter 
I never see very many in a season; possibly half a dozen or so 
would about be an average. On the fourteenth I returned to my 
old residence near “‘the marsh,” not having done so at the end of 
last year, as intimated in my Notes for 1916-1917. For many 
reasons this has been a considerable advantage, as it has enabled 
me to form a more accurate idea of the great difference a matter 


ae | Moustey, Birds of Hatley, Quebec. 483 
of only three miles can really make in the bird life of a place, as 
well as in its flora. The more swampy nature of the country 
round this latter residence, as I have already indicated elsewhere, 
has put me in touch with birds and flowers that I rarely and in 
many cases never came across in my old hunting grounds. Among 
the birds might be cited the Nashville and Tennessee Warblers, 
and of the wild flowers the orchids stand out prominently, no less 
than a dozen new species having been added to my list, which now 
stands at eighteen, or about a quarter of all the orchids known to 
occur in eastern North America. My first visit to “the marsh” 
was paid on October the fifteenth, when six Wilson’s Snipe were 
flushed and one Solitary Sandpiper seen. The conditions existing 
at this date were very different from those of August the twentieth, 
when the marsh might be said to be non-existent, there being hardly 
a drain of water in it, and consequently none of the Limicolae were 
seen. Now the whole of it was nothing but a sheet of water with 
no mud beds whatever, the Snipe and Solitary Sandpiper being 
found in the cat-tails round the margins, where little patches of 
ground not entirely submerged gave them an opportunity of feeding. 
Certainly this has been my very poorest year for Sandpiper records, 
as, with the exception of the above one for the Snipe and Solitary 
Sandpiper, I have only seen one Greater Yellow-legs, one Least 
and a few Spotted Sandpipers, and these for the most part were 
noted during my infrequent visits to “the marsh.” The seventeenth 
saw the last Myrtle Warbler, and I never remember having seen 
less in the fall than this year. 

On the twenty-third a flock of about twenty to thirty Pine Sis- 
kins were noted and remained in the district for some little time. 
Nothing of further interest occurred until November the sixteenth, 
when the first flock of Redpolls was seen and a week later two small 
ones of Pine Grosbeaks, one in my garden and the other in the 
woods three miles away, this latter consisting of seven birds, five 
of which were highly plumaged males. On the twenty-sixth a 
large flock of Canada Geese were reported as well as one on the 
ninth, and I also received a letter from Mr. Greer telling me that 
he had seen a single female Pine Grosbeak on the twenty-third 
(the same date as I had observed them) and a flock of eight on the 
following day, among which were two full plumaged males. He 


484 Moustey, Birds of Hatley, Quebec. aes 


also informed me that he had seen a Meadowlark on the twelfth 
and a Crow on the twenty-third, and that a female Merganser had 
been shot on Lake Massawippi on the sixteenth. The month 
closed without further incident, and it was not until December 
the fourth that anything occurred worth chronicling. On that day 
two more Crows were seen, a rather unusual thing, but brought 
about by the mild open weather that had prevailed up to this date, 
the thermometer never having registered anything below zero 
until the first of the month. On the ninth I received another letter 
from Mr. Greer, informing me that he had seen a Herring Gull on 
the sixth, and a flock of fourteen Golden Eyes on Lake Massawippi 
on the fourth, out of which he and a friend had secured two females. 
I find Gosse in ‘The Canadian Naturalist,’ 1840, p. 54, records 
these ducks as occurring early in March (1836-39) on unfrozen 
parts of the Massawippi River, which looks as if they are regular 
although somewhat rare migrants. 

On the fourteenth it became very mild, with heavy rain, so that 
on the following day the fields were green once more, and from this 
date onward fine open weather continued until the twenty-fourth, 
when a heavy fall of snow converted what otherwise looked like 
being a green Christmas into a white one. All through this period, 
however, and up to the end of the year very few birds were noted, 
only the usual small flocks of Redpolls; Pine Grosbeaks, and Chicka- 
dees being in evidence, with a few Blue Jays and a Pileated Wood- 
pecker on the fifteenth. The other winter birds, such as Evening 
Grosbeaks, Snow Buntings, Northern Shrikes, and Goshawks, have 
not put in an appearance, or at least if they have done so I have 
failed to notice them. 

Appended will be found the annotated notes on the four new and 
one extirpated species added to my list during the past year. 


164. Larus delawarensis (Ord.). RinvG-BitteED Guiu.— Rare tran- 
sient. Probably this Gull is merely an accidental transient, blown inland 
by easterly gales, one of which had been raging in the first week of Decem- 
ber, 1917, just previous to an example being taken in a marsh not so very 
far from Massawippi Railway Station. I saw and identified the bird 
(which had been kept in a frozen condition) in the flesh while calling 
upon Mr. Greer on January 22, 1918, and have since seen it mounted 
ready for its present owner, Mr. E. H. English of Massawippi, who, however, 


oad Moustey, Birds of Hatley, Quebec. 485 
g 


was not the captor. It was evidently in the first winter plumage, being 
irregularly mottled, the back showing partly pearl blue, the primaries 
black, the first one with the white spot near the end, but, of course, no 
white tip, as in the Herring Gull, the remainder, however, showing traces 
of*these white tips, while the bill had the band of black around it at the 
angle well developed, as in the adult, the tail, however, still showing imma- 
ture traces, as the broad black band at the end of it was still there and the 
feathers were more or less mottled. The exact date of capture is not quite 
clear, but it was probably December the ninth. 

165. Buteo platypterus platypterus (Viecillot). Broap-wINGcED 
Hawxk.—Not uncommon transient August 26, September 41, possibly breeds. 
There is no doubt I have seen this Hawk on some few occasions previ- 
ous to the above date in August and it might have been included in my list 
at a much earlier date had I felt diposed to depart from my usual plan of 
not including any Hawk or Owl unless I have actually handled it in the 
flesh or seen a mounted example taken in the district, or been in possession 
of some other equally good evidence to warrant its inclusion. However, 
on this occasion I had good reason for departing from my usual custom, as 
Dr. Charles W. Townsend was with me at the time, and being more familiar 
with the bird was able to verify my identification. 

] saw one other example on the date given in September. In the spring 
they probably pass through between April 15 and May 25 and in some 
cases may remain to breed, although I have come across no evidence of 
their having done so as yet. 

166. Nuttallornis borealis (Swainson). OLIvE-sIpED FLYCATCHER.— 
Rare summer visitant; May ?, June 11 to August 4. 

On the above date in June I was fortunate enough to locate a pair of 
these birds in a spot ideally suited for breeding. For several days however, 
I watched them without being able to discover the nest, although I knew 
they were breeding from their actions. Then a dire misfortune happened, 
for the farmer who owned the land, being evidently in need of dollars and 
cents, proceeded to cut down every spruce and fir (for pulp wood) on the 
ground, in one of which the nest no doubt was, for the birds became restless 
and uneasy and deserted the spot, and it took me some little time to trace 
their whereabouts. However, I succeeded at last in doing so, and on 
June 27 had the satisfaction of seeing one of the birds break off a small 
twig from a tall hemlock tree, which, however, it unfortunately dropped. 
Further attempts to break off another having failed, the bird eventually 
gave up, and I no doubt lost my one and only chance of discovering the 
site of their second venture, as just at that time circumstances prevented 
me from keeping a further watch over their movements, and it was only 
by accident that I came across one of them again on August 1, about a 
mile from the spot where I had last seen them on June 30. They are 
interesting birds and not at all shy, and their notes are very varied, the 
ones uttered when I first came across them sounding like a shrill whistled 
pi-pee. The more general notes, however, seemed to be ‘Whip-you-see, 


486 Movstey, Birds of Hatley,Quebec. [om 


Whip, whip, Pip, pip,’ and ‘ Pip, pip, pip,’ possibly, the ‘ Whip, whip’ ones 
being the most often used. 

167. Vireosylva philadelphica (Cassin). PHILADELPHIA VIREO.— 
Rare transient. August 23. On the above date in August while working 
through my favorite Warbler wood about a mile to the north of Hatley 
Village, I was fortunate enough to get a glimpse of one of the above birds, 
although the view at the time was really so imperfect that had it not been 
for my good fortune in having Dr. Charles W. Townsend with me at the 
time, I should hardly have felt justified in making the record public. 
The Doctor, however, who was some little distance away from me at the 
time, was fortunate in getting a much clearer view of it than I did, and 
having seen the bird in life before was in a better position to affirm that it 
was certainly a Philadelphia Vireo. 

From what I saw of it, possibly its smaller size as compared with the other 
Vireos was the most dominant feature that impressed itself upon my mind 
at the moment. 

168. Ectopistes migratorius (Linnzus). PAssENGER PIGEON.— 
Formerly a summer visitant, but now practically if not entirely extirpated. 

During the present year I have been fortunate in securing a book of 
much local interest entitled ‘The Canadian Naturalist,’ written by P. H. 
Gosse and published in London in 1840. 

Gosse it appears came to Compton, a village about seven miles to the 
northeast of Hatley, in 1836 and remained there until 1839. During these 
three years he wrote a general account of the flora and fauna of the dis- 
trict, which includes the first specific reference as to the dates of the occur- 
rence of the Passenger Pigeon in these parts that I have seen. The book 
is written in the form (then somewhat prevalent) of a series of conversations 
supposed to pass between a father and son. ‘The first reference occurs on 
page 199, where the son asks, ‘“‘ What birds are those flying so swiftly in a 
small flock ?’’ (the date apparently being about June 10, 1838); to which the 
father replies as follows, viz.: ‘‘ That is the celebrated Passenger Pigeon 
(Columba migratoria) and the first flock I have seen this year. They do 
not appear to make their migrations, as birds in general do, to avoid 
ungenial seasons, but to obtain in abundance that food which is most 
suited to their wants; hence their appearances are very uncertain as to time. 
They are common enough in this country every summer, but I have never 
seen anything like the innumerable hosts of pigeons that fill the sky in the 
forests of the west.’’ Later the father goes on to say, ‘‘ They are much 
sought after for the table, as the flesh is delicate, and many are killed during 
their sojourn with us.” Again on page 293, in the first week in September 
the son asks, ‘‘ What birds are those which are hovering in a cloud about 
yonder field of buckwheat ?’’ to which the father replies, ‘‘ They are the 
Common Passenger Pigeon (Columba migratoria); they devour a great 
quantity of that grain in seasons when they are numerous with us. It is, 
I believe, the only mischief we sustain from them; and the gun takes ample 
revenge.” 


»” 


THE AUK, VOL. XXXVI. PLATE XIX. 


Dark AND Light PHASES OF THE WEDGE-TAILED SHEARWATER. 


Seana | Loomis, Wedge-tailed Shearwater. 487 


From the above quotations it appears evident the birds were quite 
numerous about 1838, some seasons appearing in greater numbers than in 
others, the date of their arrival, however, always being somewhat erratic. 

So far, unfortunately, I have been unable to obtain any reliable informa- 
tion from the older inhabitants concerning the date of the last pigeons seen 
here, but probably they disappeared between 1880 and 1885, although it is 
possible a few stragglers may have lingered even up to 1896, the date of the 
last one recorded in Maine. 


‘DICHROMATISM IN THE WEDGE-TAILED 
SHEARWATER. 


BY LEVERETT MILLS LOOMIS. 
Plate XIX 


THE Wedge-tailed Shearwater (Puffinus chlororhynchus) appears 
to be restricted to the warmer areas of the Indian and Pacific 
oceans. It has been definitely reported as breeding on the Sey- 
chelle and Mascarene islands in the western Indian Ocean, on 
islands off the west and east coasts of Australia, on Lord Howe, 
Norfolk, Kermadec, and Surprise islands in the southwestern 
Pacific, and in the North Pacific on Voleano and Marcus islands, 
the Leeward group and Kauai of the Hawaiian Archipelago, and 
San Benedicto of the Revilla Gigedo Islands. Specimens have 
been obtained in the Caroline, Marshall, Phoenix, Fanning, and 
Society islands. Whether any of the colonies are migratory, 
remains to be determined. 

In the extreme dark phase of this Shearwater, the general color 
aspect of the upper parts is dark brown and that of the lower 
grayish brown, becoming gray on the foreneck. In the extreme 
light phase, the general aspect is grayish brown above and white 
below, except on lower tail-coverts. Intermediates have the white 


1The photograph reproduced in this plate was kindly taken for me by Mr. L. R. 
Reynolds. 


488 Loomis, Wedge-tailed Shearwater. los 
of the lower parts more or less obscured with gray or grayish brown. 

A difference exists in the geographic range of the two phases. 
The light phase is predominant in the Hawaiian Archipelago, 
dark-breasted birds being of rare occurrence. On San Benedicto 
Island the dark phase is in the ascendency, greatly outnumbering 
the intermediates and white-breasted birds. In the Kermadec 
Islands only the dark phase is represented. On the east coast of 
Australia and in the Indian Ocean dark birds also prevail; _ but 
sporadic white-breasted ones may occur, for Gould figures such a 
specimen in Volume VII of his ° Birds of Australia. 

Although there is a difference in their distribution, the phases 
of this Shearwater do not correlate with climatic conditions after 
the manner of geographic variation. On Sunday Islet of the 
Kermadec group, where the light phase is absent, both phases of 
the Neglected Petrel are abundant, witnessing that there are no 
climatic barriers exleuding light phases. In continental dichro- 
matic species the factor.of island isolation is eliminated and the 
lack of harmony of phases with environmental conditions is still 
more apparent. For instance, the light phase of the Red-tailed 
Hawk prevails in the humid Eastern States, while both the dark 
and light phases occur in the arid Western States, along with the 
gray phase of the Screech Owl and the dark and light phases of 
Swainson’s Hawk. Further examples of the distribution of phases, 
independent of environment, may be found among the Herons ' 
and other groups having dichromatic species. 

Like geographic variation, dichromatic variation has frequently 
been mistaken for characters of specific rank, giving rise to numer- 
ous apocryphal species. The light phases of Puffinus chlororhynchus 
and Pterodroma neglecta have been respectively designated “ Puffinus 
cuneatus”’ and “(strelata leucophrys.” 

Dichromatic and individual variations have evolutionary possi- 
bilities, and there are just as good reasons for treating dichromatic 
variations (possible mutations) on the subspecies basis as there 
are for treating geographic variations on that basis. Whatever 
course is pursued, the fact remains that the subspecies rests on no 
better foundation than a theory that begs the question; for we do 


1Cf. Bangs, Auk, Vol. XXXII, 1915, pp. 481-484. 


Sais | Wayne, Nest and Eggs of Wayne's Warbler. 489 


not know the remote future of any of these variations, nor the 
manner in which existing bird species were evolved. 

The subspecies theory has often been justified on the ground. 
that it is a convenient method of handling geographic variations." 
One has only to read Dr. Oberholser’s “Monograph of the Genus 
Chordeiles”? to learn that the attempt to give definiteness to 
indefinite variations involves the student in an interminable maze. 
It is maintained that the only way out of the subspecies dilemma 
is to treat geographic variation in the same manner as dichromatic 
and individual variations are commonly treated. 


THE NEST AND EGGS OF WAYNE’S WARBLER (DEN- 
DROICA VIRENS WAYNEI) TAKEN NEAR MOUNT 
PLEASANT, S. C. 


BY ARTHUR T. WAYNE. 


THE hope of finding the nest and eggs of this new bird was 
eagerly looked forward to during the spring of this year, and on 
March 20, 1919, I visited the place where the type specimen was 
taken on April 25, 1918. A few males were heard singing from the 
topmost branches of some tall, gigantic, deciduous trees, and were 
also seen to fly into very tall pines, which latter trees the birds 
seemed to prefer. 

On March 31 I again visited the place, and although convinced 
that the birds were mated and the females engaged in constructing 
nests it was impossible to catch even a glimpse of the latter, and 
the males left no clue as to the whereabouts of their mates. Al- 
though much discouraged I had not given up hope, and on April 18 
Mr. J. H. Moessner, who accompanied me and who took me on the 
previous trips in his automobile, made every effort to locate the 


1 Cf. Dwight, Auk, Vol. X XT, 1904, p. 64. 
2 U.S. Nat. Mus. Bull. 86, 1914; see especially pp. 16-18. 


490 Wayne, Nest and Eggs of Wayne’s Warbler. [oak 


female and, if possible, find the nest. About 4 o’clock P. M. on 
April 18 I discovered a female, and with the aid of Mr. Moessner, 
who watched her closely, we saw thé bird make a long flight and 
apparently stop in or near a live oak tree. We hastened to the 
spot, and finding no trace of her began to lose heart, when Mr. 
Moessner called my attention to a minute, dark spot on the termi- 
nal end of a live oak limb among numerous twigs which were 
branching in every direction. I then suggested to him to throw 
some small sticks near the nest so as to startle the bird, if the 
minute object was, in reality, the nest. This he did, and after some 
dozen ineffectual efforts succeeded in striking the limb, which at 
once caused the sitting bird to leave. 

The nest, as I have said, was built in a live oak tree and on the 
end of a horizontal branch among twigs which radiated in every 
direction, and was absolutely concealed, being about thirty-eight 
feet above the ground. I of course made an attempt to secure 
the prize at once, although I knew the nest was inaccessible without 
rope or some other material for assistance, as there were no limbs 
above or beneath that upon which the nest was situated, and, 
although I tried, my attempt proved a failure. On April 21 I 
went again with Mr. Moessner, he bringing about 200 feet of 
Manila rope with which to draw in the limb to another live oak 
tree about twelve feet away, which I climbed, and after I had 
adjusted the ropes over the limb, which he was then to draw in to 
me, I requested him to go slowly, but the limb yielded only a 
little, although considerable pressure was exerted. Sad to relate, 
without a moments warning, the limb snapped off and the four 
fresh eggs that the nest contained were dashed to fragments on the 
ground. My hopes were likewise shattered, and I would have 
gladly fallen in order that the eggs might have been saved! 

The nest, which is a beautiful object, is small and compact, 
measuring 13 inches in height by 13 inches in depth. It is con- 
structed of strips of fine bark and weed stems, over which is wound 
externally the black substance that invariably is present in the 
lining of the nests of Bachman’s Warbler (J’ermivora bachmani). 
The interior of the nest is chiefly composed of a beautiful ochra- 
ceous buff substance, doubtless from the unfolding leaves of some 
fern, and a few feathers. The remnants of the eggs were sorrow- 


: 
SR 


5 | Wayne, Nest and Eggs of Wayne's Warbler. 49] 
fully but carefully examined and were found to be white or whitish, 
speckled and spotted with brownish red and lilac in the form of a 
wreath at the larger end. 

On April 28 I again visited the locality, and was accompanied 
by two ladies, Miss Louise Petigru Ford of Aiken, S. C., and Miss 
Marion J. Pellew of Washington, D. C., both of whom are enthu- 
siastic students of ornithology, and acquainted with most of the 
land birds found in the eastern United States. Our visit to the 
swamp was with the hope of finding the female (whose eggs were 
destroyed on April 21) in the act of building another nest, but 
although this was partially accomplished, as far as seeing the bird 
and watching her closely from tree to tree, she finally eluded us 
and could not be found again. 

A very young bird just from the nest and unable to fly more than 
a few feet was being fed by the male parent, which shows that the 
birds breed irregularly. This young bird was collected (after about 
twenty minutes deliberation) and proved to be a male. At last 
I suggested to my companions to visit a spot about a mile and 
a half from the place where the female had eluded us, as I had 
seen a pair of the birds in question frequenting two magnolia 
trees of large size in the densest portion of the swamp. Upon 
arriving at the place and pointing out the magnolias to my friends, 
my attention was arrested almost at once by a Warbler coming 
from the northward of the magnolias, and which I soon identified, 
as a female Dendroica virens waynet. We kept our eyes riveted 
upon her, each of us taking stands around the two magnolias 
and thus encircling them. Miss Ford being on the southern side 
of one of the trees saw the female go to her nest and informed me 
of the fact at once. This nest was built near the extremity of a 
very long, drooping magnolia limb, but on the horizontal portion of 
it and about twenty-five feet above the ground. Near at hand, 
about ten feet away, a very slender ash tree grew, whose topmost . 
branch reached the top of the nest on a level. I climbed this tree, 
and with the aid of a long limb that I cut from the ash drew in the ~ 
limb and then attached it by two leather field-glass straps to the 
sapling and abstracted the four heavily incubated eggs that the 
nest contained. 

This nest was concealed from above by the large magnolia 


(ee 


492 Guntuorp, Heronry on Lake Cormorant, Minn. Oct. 


leaves. It measures 24 inches in height by 2 inches in depth and 
is constructed of strips of bark externally, over which is Spanish 
moss and hypnum moss held together by a large quantity of 
caterpillar silk. The interior of the nest is lavishly lined with the 
beautiful ochraceous buff substance from the young fern leaves, 
as in the first nest. 

The eggs are of a white or whitish color speckled and spotted 
in the form of a wreath around the larger end with brownish red 
and lilac, and measure .60 X .50, .60 X .50, .60 X .50, .60 X .49 
inch. I have known this bird ever since May 4, 1885, when I 
took a male at Caw Caw Swamp, Colleton County, S. C., while 
on a collecting trip with my friend the late William Brewster. 
I gave the bird to him in the flesh, and in his collection it still 
remains, but the nest and eggs have remained unknown until 
brought to light by this season’s research. 

My thanks are extended to Misses Ford and Pellew, who rendered 
me such valuable assistance on this memorable occasion. 


A HERONRY ON LAKE CORMORANT, MINNESOTA. 
BY HORACE GUNTHORP. 


LakE Cormorant is located in the southwest corner of Becker 
County, Minnesota, and really consists of a chain of four or five 
small lakes extending in a general east and west direction with 
the exception of the last one in the series, which is situated north 
of the most western one. In a dry season, like the past summer, 
these lakes are almost, if not entirely, separated from each other 
by mud flats covered with a rank growth of rushes. In a wet 
year a rowboat can be polled through these shallow connecting 
straits with comparative ease. The shores of the lakes are in 
some places rocky, being composed of piles of glacial boulders, 
while in others they are shallow, with a muddy bottom in which 
rushes and submerged water plants grow abundantly, while here 


aie | GuntuHorp, Heronry on Lake Cormorant, Minn. 493 


and there an occasional inlet is filled with water lilies. As the 
lakes are well stocked with fish, these numerous marshy spots 
form excellent feeding grounds for the shore waders. The sur- 
rounding country is rolling, and was once covered with a forest 
of elm, hard maple, and birch, with an occasional oak. At the 
present time a considerable portion of the land has been, cleared 
and is under cultivation, the woods being confined mostly to the 
lake shores. All the salable timber was taken out some forty 
years ago, and as a result few large trees are seen, most of them 
ranging up to sixteen or eighteen inches in diameter. 

Less than a quarter of a mile from the junction of the two western 
lakes, near the center of a heavily wooded knoll, stands a group of 
larger trees in which the Great Blue Herons have built their nests, 
forming a heronry of no mean size. These birds have been here 
at least ten years, according to farmers living in the neighborhood, 
and from all available information are increasing in numbers. A 
few years ago their nests were confined to a large elm (4) ! near the 
south end of the heronry, but they have gradually spread, both 
north and south, from this original tree until now they occupy 
fourteen trees, the extreme limits of which cover approximately 
two hundred eighty-five feet in length and one hundred feet in 
width. The State laws in Minnesota give adequate protection 
to the Herons, as they not only impose a heavy fine for the destruc- 
tion of the birds, but also specify that trees containing Herons’ 
nests shall not be cut down. But besides the State protection, 
it is fortunate that the land on which the heronry stands is held 
by a group of gentlemen living in North Dakota, who use it for a 
summer home, and who are very much interested in preserving the 
woods and its life in as near a wild state as possible. 

The opportunity came to the writer to make a survey of the 
heronry during the month of August, 1918, while spending a short 
time camping on the neighboring lake. Several trips were made 
to the trees containing the nests, but, owing to the lateness of the 
season, only four young birds were seen in their nests. The large 
size of the heronry was not suspected by the owners of the land, 
their explorations having taken them no farther than the first 


1 Numbers in parentheses refer to trees shown in accompanying diagram. 


494 Guntuorp, Heronry on Lake Cormorant, Minn. 


[oct 


large elm tree (4) near the south end of the heronry. In the 
accompanying sketch the measurements between the trees were 


Trees occupied by Herons. 


roughly paced off, the trees not 
occupied by nests being omitted. 
Also, the size of the trees is only 
approximate, as no tape line nor 
rule was available for more ac- 
curate measurements. 

The shape of the whole group 
is roughly a parallelogram with 
the long sides extending some 
one hundred seventy-five feet 
north and south, while it is about 
one hundred feet wide. From 
the southeast corner of this ex- 
tends a row of four trees, the 
farthest one being one hundred 
ten feet from the corner. All of 
these trees are hard maple except 
two, and vary in size from eight 
to thirty-six inches, the majority 
of them being twenty or more 
inches in diameter. ‘The two ex- 
ceptions are elms, one (8) being 
located in the northwest corner, 
and the other (4) being the fourth 
from the south end of the de- 
tached line. Near the last-men- 
tioned tree is the fallen trunk 
of another elm of good size which 


has been dead for some time and which blew over last spring. 
Probably it held nests of the Heron at some past date, but not 
last year, as no remnants of nests were in or near its fallen branches. 
The hard maple (5) located at the southeast corner of the parallelo- 


gram has two trunks of about the same size, twenty inches. 
The total number of nests in the trees and on the ground under 


them numbered sixty-six. 


Eight of this number were on the 


ground, but were in good condition, and had evidently been used 


ve epaall GuntuHorP, Heronry on Lake Cormorant, Minn. 495 


during the nesting season just closing. The large elm (4) seems 
to be the center of the colony, it having a total of thirty-three nests, 
five of which had fallen out. It is evident that the Herons in this 
particular heronry prefer the elm to the hard maple, as the only 
other elm (8) has the next largest number of nests in it, five. At 
first it was thought this was due to the greater height of the elms, 
as Herons prefer the highest trees, but in this case the hard maples 
used seem to be of practically the same height as the elms, but the 
latter have tops that spread more and so probably furnish more and | 
better places for the placing of the nests. In the following table 
is given the size of each tree in the heronry, the number of nests 
it supported, and other data: 


Size in 


No. Variety eapae Nests Remarks 
1 Hard maple 16 2 
2 é f 20 4 
3 “ “ 8 o 
4 Elm 36 33 
5 Hard maple 20 4 2 young birds 
6 . i 24 4 
7 g a 20 1 
8 Elm 28 5 
9 Hard maple 20 1 
10 * sf 22 1 
ll 55 . 36 2 
12 ” 2 24 3 2 young birds 
13 ¢ is RS 1 
14 “ “ 20 3 


In each case mentioned above the two young birds were in the 
same nest, and were well grown and able to move around with 
considerable ease among the branches of the tree in which the nest 
was placed. 

The fallen nests were examined and found to consist of a mass of 
twigs forming a platform in some cases three feet in diameter and 
eighteen inches in thickness. No cementing material was used 
except on the upper surface, which was floored with mud. Whether 
this formed part of the original material used in the construction 


496 GuntHorp, Heronry on Lake Cormorant, Minn. bse 


of the nest, or was simply an accumulation of mud brought to the 
nest on the feet of the parent birds from their frequent trips to the 
marshy shores of the lake, is not clear. The solid nature of the 
structure of the Herons’ nests is shown by the fact that a fifty-foot 
fall was apparently not able to damage them in the least. 

The remains of different species of fish were on the ground under 
the trees together with parts of crayfishes. In regard to what 
Herons eat, Barrows! says, “The Blue Heron feeds mainly on 
fish and frogs, but also eats immense numbers of crayfish, small 
snakes, salamanders, insects (among them grasshoppers), meadow 
mice, and almost anything of an animal nature. So far as we know 
it never eats vegetable substances of any kind.” On the other 
hand, Wilson 2 states (Vol. 2, p. 448) that it “also eats the seeds 
of that species of nymphe usually called splatterdocks, so abundant 
along our freshwater ponds and rivers.”” When disturbed, the 
birds disgorge partly digested fish and other food. Heads and 
backbones of fish were numerous under the occupied trees, showing 
that the larger animals are torn to pieces and the bones picked by 
the young birds. This refuse accounts for the presence of numer- 
ous carrion beetles found under sticks and logs under the heronry. 

A careful survey of the heronry at Lake Cormorant was made 
and is here recorded because it is located where it will in all proba- 
bility be protected for years to come, and thus it will be possible 
to record the future growth of the colony accurately, and so we 
shall be able to form some estimate of the status of the Great Blue 
Heron in Minnesota and the Northwest. 


1 Barrows, Walter Bradford, ‘Michigan Bird Life,’ Lansing, Mich., 1912. 
2 Wilson, Alexander, ‘American Ornithology,’ 3 Vols., New York, 1877. 


‘eee rial tad Burweicu, Bird-life in Southwestern France. 497 


BIRD LIFE IN SOUTHWESTERN FRANCE. 
BY THOMAS D. BURLEIGH. 


THESE notes were taken during 1918, while I was serving in 
France with the American Expeditionary Force. I was then with 
the 10th Engineers, a forestry regiment that was engaged in cutting 
pilings, ties, and lumber of various dimensions. We were located 
in the Department of Landes during our entire period of foreign 
service, so I had an opportunity to make a detailed study of the 
bird life in this part of France. Our work necessarily kept us busy 
for six days out of the week, but our Sundays were usually free, 
and, being in the woods as we were, there was an opportunity of 
picking up odd notes even while at work. From the first of Febru- 
ary until the 14th of September, and again for a week in December, 
from the 19th to the 26th, I was at Ponteux, while from the 14th 
of September to the 19th of December I was at Sore. 

Ponteux is a small town in the extreme southwestern part of 
France. The surrounding country is, with the exception of 
occasionally scattered sand dunes, level and largely covered with 
long stretches of maritime pine. Small streams are numerous, and 
bordered here and there with alders and a sprinkling of oaks. 
In places the water has spread out and formed tangled alder 
swamps. Such cultivated land as there is lies about the town and 
the scattered farms. Ten kilometers west of Ponteux lies a large 
lake, Etang Aureilhan, formed by the damming up of a large 
creek, which flows from here to the ocean, a distance of eight 
kilometers. 

Sore is fifty kilometers northeast of Ponteux. Here the country 
is not different from that about the latter town, although there is 
even less cultivated land and no large bodies of water within many 
miles. The Seyre River flows through the town, but is a com- 
paratively small stream. 

The following are the birds observed, with notes on their actions, 
migration, and nesting habits. Few of them are found in America, 
but many are so similar to our species, and some of them so differ- 
ent. that it was thought that my list would be of general interest 
to the readers of ‘The Auk.’ 


498 Burweian, Bird-life in Southwestern France. loan 


1. Turdus viscivorus viscivorus L. Muistte THrusu.—In a large 
alder swamp close to the town three of these birds could be heard singing 
during the early morning and late afternoon throughout the spring and 
early summer. High in one of the larger trees they would pour out their 


varied whistles, trills, squawks, ete., for hours ata time. Always timid, they 


would become silent at the slightest alarm, only to begin again in a short 
time from another tree some distance away. The last bird was heard 


singing on July 16, and once quiet they were not seen again. This one 


swamp was the only place where any of this species were found. 
2. Turdus philomelos philomelos Brehm. Sona Turusa.— This 
species was a migrant only, flocks of varying size appearing in the spring 


and fall. They frequented thickets and underbrush about water, and were: 


usually timid, disappearing with a sharp, sparrow-like chip when ap- 
proached. The first ones were seen on March 24. By the 29th they were 
plentiful and singing. On that day some thirty of them were found in 


the tops of the pines at the edge of a stretch of woods, all singing. The 


song was a rich broken warble, and uttered by many of the birds at the 
same time was very pleasing. From the first of April on they gradually 


disappeared, and by the end of the month none were left. They were: 


first seen again on October 3, when one bird was found feeding in a thicket 


bordering a stream. October 24 numerous small flocks were seen. The 


last record for the year was December 14, one bird again being seen. 

3. Turdus musicus musicus L. Repwina.— On November 21 one 
bird was seen. Jt was feeding at the edge of a thicket, and on being 
approached flew up into a sapling where its red flanks and the line over 
its eye were easily noticeable. 

4. Turdus pilaris L. Fretprare.— But two birds were seen, flushed 


on November 18 from underbrush bordering a small stream. They were: 
very timid, flying into the top of a large tree and then into the woods some: 


distance away. 
5. Turdus merula merula L. Brackpirp.— Plentiful and resident, 


and found about thickets and underbrush close to water. Although wary 


and hard to approach, they would invariably utter a sharp spluttering 
outburst on flying, and this frequently attracted notice to them where 
otherwise they would have been passed by unobserved. Another note they 
had was a low cluck. By the end of March they were frequently heard 
singing, especially toward dusk. The song was a loud, rich warble. During 


early summer family parties were occasionally encountered instead of the 


single birds seen before. On the 18th of November these birds were unusu- 
ally plentiful, as many as ten being frightened from one thicket. Although 
largely resident, some had evidently wandered in from farther north. 

6. Gnanthe cenanthe cenanthe (L.). WuHeratear.—A pair of 
these birds were first seen on April 12 at the edge of a slashing. They 
lingered here for a week, being last recorded on the 19th. They returned 
again early in the fall, three birds being seen on August 18. By the 25th 
of this month they were fairly plentiful, but for a short time only, soon 


Waa) 


Vol. ie | 
1919 


BurueienH, Bird-life in Southwestern France. 499 
gradually disappearing. They were always found about open fields or 
slashings, and although inconspicuous on the ground, their white rumps 
caught the eye when in flight. With the exception of a low note of alarm 
when too closely approached, they were always silent. Occasionally one 
might be seen on a fence post or on a brush pile, but they seldom left the 
ground. On October 20 the last bird was seen, feeding at the edge of 
newly plowed ground. 

7. Saxicola rubetra rubreta (L.). WuxrncHat.— A scarce summer 
resident, found invariably about fields or slashings overgrown with briars 
andfurze. Erect, and with nervously jerking tail, they could be seen on the 
top of a furze bush, dropping occasionally to the ground for food or flying 
to another bush a short distance away. Usually they were in pairs and 
always silent. April 26 the first bird was seen, October 13 the last one. 

8. Saxicola torquata rubicola (L.). Sronscuat.— Although less 
plentiful during the winter months, these birds were seen throughout the 
year about fields and slashings overgrown with briars and furze. Like the 
preceding, they remained in the tops of the bushes, dropping to the ground 
for food, but never remaining there long. On being approached they 
would fly from bush to bush, uttering a harsh, rolling chatter. On the 20th 
of May a male was seen in the top of a small tree, singing. The song was a 
weak, even-toned, drawn-out trill. 

9. Pheenicurus phenicurus phenicurus (L.). Repsrart.— On 
April 7 one bird was seen in underbrush bordering a pond. ‘Two were seen 
on April 16 in alders bordering a small stream, and from then on they grad- 
ually became plentiful, and were found entirely about houses and sheds. 
In the town of Mimizan-les-Bains they were much in evidence, singing 
from the gables of the roofs or from the tops of the chimneys. The song 
was loud and clear, a short, rich, thrush-like trill. On June 8 fully grown 
young, out of the nest several days at least, were seen about an unused 
house. During the summer and early fall these birds became very scarce, 
and never became very plentiful again. The last one was seen October 13. 

10. Dandalus rubecula rubecula (L.). Rosrn.— Resident and very 
plentiful, with their small size, long tilted gray tail and habit of feeding about 
thickets and brush piles, these birds reminded me much of Wrens. They 
were found at the edge of the pine woods, but were seen largely in the neigh- 
borhood of houses. They sang at all times throughout the year, in good 
weather and bad, although their song, disconnected, of short warbles, trills, 
and occasional unmusical, wiry notes, was more evident in early spring and 
late fall, when other birds were largely silent. Their commonest note was 
a sharp chip. 

11. Luscinia megarhyncha megarhyncha Brehm. NIGHTINGALE. 
— A plentiful summer resident, frequenting thickets and underbrush at 
the edge of fields and roads. The first bird was seen on April 25, singing 
from a dense thicket. The song reminded me much of our Catbird’s, 
although it was richer and fuller. By the 28th of April the birds were 
quite plentiful and many were heard singing. On May 20 the first one 


500 BurueiaH, Bird-life in Southwestern France. le 


was heard at night. After the first week in June their singing ceased 
entirely and very few were seen after that. The last one was seen August 11 
in some underbrush at the edge of an open field. 

12. Prunella modularis modularis (L.). Hrpce Sparrow.— On 
November 21 two birds were seen, singly, feeding in thickets. They were 
far from timid and easy to approach. This species is evidently but a 
straggler, or at best a scarce migrant here. 

13. Sylvia communis communis Lath. Wautreraroat.— About 
thickets and hedges bordering open fields and woods this species was quite 
plentiful during the summer months. First seen on April 17, they were 
soon much in evidence, creeping about the hedge rows or fluttering over- 
head, uttering their bubbling, rollicking song. In late summer they became 
silent, but were not at all scarce. The last one was seen October 1. 

14. Sylvia hortensis hortensis (Gm.). GarDEN WarBLER.— This 
bird was but a scarce migrant and seen but once. On April 25 five birds 
were found silently feeding in underbrush at the edge of a stretch of woods. 

15. Sylvia atricapilla atricapilla (L.). Buackcapr.— This species 
was fairly plentiful, but occurred as a migrant only. The first one was seen 
on March 24, and within a week many could be found feeding in thickets 
and low underbrush. The song which at this time was frequently heard 
was a short low warble, broken by gurgling calls and low trills. By the 
middle of April all had disappeared and none were seen again until Sep- 
tember 26, when an adult male was found feeding in underbrush bordering a 
stream. They were last seen October 24, but were quite plentiful on that 
date. P 

16. Sylvia undata undata Bodd. Darrrorp WarBLER.— Resident 
and plentiful about fields and slashings overgrown with briars and furze. 
Here they could be seen creeping about the underbrush, where with their 
long tilted tails they appeared much like Wrens. On June 16 they were 
feeding young out of the nest. On that date a male was heard singing; the 
song was a short, weak, slightly harsh warble. 

17. Cettia cetti cetti (Marm.). Crrri’s WarsiLer.— This small 
reddish brown Warbler was common during the summer about small streams 
and ponds, the edges of which were bordered with reeds. Although shy 
and seldom seen, it was conspicuous by its loud ringing song. This con- 
sisted of two sharp, abrupt notes and then a short trill. The first bird was 
seen April 6. On September 2 one was heard singing for the last time. 

18. Acrocephalus schenobsenus (L.). SepGe Warsier.— This 
bird was seemingly but an irregular migrant, being seen only during early 
spring and early fall. As its name implies, it was found in reeds or alders 
bordering water. The two times it was seen were March 24, two birds, 
and August 11 one bird. 

19. Phylloscopus trochilus trochilus (L.). Wittow WarBLEerR.— 
A plentiful spring and fall migrant, haunting underbrush at the edge of 
open fields or woods. Although plain plumaged and small in size, they were 
easily noticeable because of their great activity. Flitting from limb to 


ais 


Ve yal BurueiGH, Bird-life in Southwestern France. 501 
limb or flying out after an insect, they were never still, for even when paus- 
ing for a moment they nervously jerked their tail continuously. The first 
bird was seen March 23, but it was several weeks before they became 
plentiful. On April 7 one was heard singing for the first time, a short, 
sweet warble. From the middle of April on they gradually disappeared 
and by the first of May none were left. They were first seen again on 
August 11 and within a week were quite plentiful. On August 18 a large 
flock was seen. After the middle of September they became scarce, but 
one was occasionally seen until the first week of December. 

20. Regulus ignicapillus ignicapillus (Temm.). Frre-cRESTED 
WreEN.— This little bird resembled in every respect our Golden-crowned 
Kinglet — size, appearance, actions, and notes. It was a plentiful winter 
resident, occurring in small flocks, either alone or with wandering flocks of 
Long-tailed or Blue Tits. In the spring the last bird was seen on March 10, 
several feeding in the tops of the maritime pines at the edge of a stretch of 
woods. In the fall they were first seen on September 22, and were soon of 
common occurrence. 

21. githalos caudatus. LonaG-TaiLep Tir.— Plentiful and resi- 
dent, and occurring in loose, wandering flocks. Always noisy and with a 
great variety of notes these birds, although small, were far from inconspicu- 
ous. Most frequently heard was a deep-toned chip and a thin, high-pitched 
call identical with that of our Golden-crowned Kinglet. They nested 
early, for on April 28 two nests were found with newly hatched young. 
These were large balls of moss lined with feathers and well covered exter- 
nally with lichens. The entrance was a small opening at the side, barely 
large enough to permit the bird to enter. One nest was thirty feet from 
the ground at the outer end of a limb of a large cork oak at the side of a 
road. The other was but five feet from the ground in a large briar at the 
side of a road, in the middle of a large mass of dead leaves lodged there 
during the winter. 

22. Parus major major L. Great Tir.—This species was not so plenti- 
ful as the last, and occurred usually in pairs or at most three or four birds. 
They were resident, and being of a wandering disposition could, except 
during the nesting season, be found almost anywhere, even in the middle 
of the larger towns. Always noisy, they were especially so in the spring, 
uttering for long intervals at a time a repetition of two unmusical, high 
pitched notes. A late nest was found July 15 with almost fully fledged 
young. It was three feet from the ground, in a natural cavity in the trunk 
of a large maritime pine at the edge of a stretch of woods, and was a matted 
bed of green moss, bits of wool, and considerable cow’s hair. 

23. Parus ceruleus ceruleus L. Brive Tir— Plentiful and resi- 
dent. Next to the Long-tailed Tits these birds were the most frequently 
observed of this family. Like the others, they occurred in small wandering 
flocks and frequently were found with them. A nest found the sixth of 
June with large young was twelve feet from the ground in a natural cavity 
in the trunk of an oak at the side of a road through the woods. Another 


502 Burueicn, Bird-life in Southwestern France. es 


found June 12 with almost fully fledged young was in the hollow of a large 
shell lying on the ground near a munition works. 

24. Parus cristatus mitratus Brehm. Crestep Tir.— This species 
was resident and plentiful except during the nesting season. At this time 
these birds evidently retired to the deep pine woods to nest. During the 
fall and winter they were found with others of this family, and were easily 
recognized by their crest and dull plumage. On March 17 one was heard 
uttering a loud, clear, two-syllabled whistle. 

25. Sitta europea europea L. Nutrsarcu.— With the exception of 
the black line over its eye, this species resembled very closely our Red- 
breasted Nuthatch. Jt was found throughout the year wherever there 
were stretches of woods and was frequently seen associating with the Tits. 
Its loud, querulous notes made it noticeable wherever it occurred. On 
March 24 one was heard uttering a loud, clear, rolling whistle. Toward the 
end of May young, fully grown and out of the nest, were seen. 

26. Certhia familiaris subsp.? Crerper.— This species resembled in 
every respect — size, actions, and notes, and general plumage — our Brown 
Creeper. ]t was noisier, however, and far more agile, feeding with seeming 
ease on the smaller limbs, where it was often seen. It could be found 
throughout the year in the pines, and was often seen with the Tits and the 
Nuthatch. A nest found May 7 with four fully fledged young was three 
feet from the ground, in a crack in the trunk of a large maritime pine at the 
edge of a stretch of woods, and facing an open field. It was composed 
largely of green moss with a few feathers, soft grasses, and bits of wool. 

27. Troglodytes troglodytes troglodytes (L.). Wren.— This, 
the only one of the family found in Europe, reminded me much of our Winter 
Wren. It was of the same size, actions, and notes, even down to its song, 
which could be heard at any and all times. Although found at times about 
houses, it was largely seen in the pine woods, feeding in the tangled thickets 
of briars. Jt was resident and plentiful at all times. Several old nests 
were found in pockets in upturned roots, balls of small twigs and green 
moss. 

28. Sturnus vulgaris vulgaris L. Srartinc.— This bird was 
seemingly an irregular straggler only in this part of France, for I have but 
two records of its occurrence. On October 24 a flock of ten birds was seen 
in the tops of several chestnut trees at the edge of a field, and on December 
22 a flock of eight was noticed flying by overhead. 

29. Garrulus glandarius glandarius (L.). Jay.— Resident and 
plentiful, occurring, except during the nesting season, in noisy, wandering 
flocks. With their dull brown plumage they would be far from conspicu- 
ous but for their white rump and harsh cries. Feeding in the tops of the 
pines at the edge of the woods, they were seldom quiet, and so always much 
in evidence. 

30. Pica pica pica (L.). Macprr.— This bird was seemingly in every 
respect like our Magpie. It was resident and plentiful in the more open 
country, but was never seen deep in the pine woods. On May 12 a bird 


Oct. 


a Sia aa) 


ge) ot Burueianu, Bird-life in Southwestern France. 503 
was seen flying from a nest seventy feet from the ground, in the top of a 
large maritime pine at the edge of a short stretch of woods. 

31. Corvus corone corone I... Carrion Crow.— In appearance and 
actions these birds resembled very much our Common Crow. Their 
vocabulary was more varied, however, some of their notes reminding me 
much of the Raven. They were at all times quite plentiful and occurred 
equally often in the open country and deep in the woods. They were 
usually seen singly or in pairs, although on February 24 sixty were found 
feeding together in a large field. During early spring they were occasion- 
ally seen cireling and soaring high overhead. 

32. Lanius excubitor excubitor L. Great Gray SHRIKE.— On 
November 2 two birds were seen on a telephone wire at the side of a road. 
This was my only record for the occurrence of this species. In appearance 
they reminded me of our Northern Shrike. 

33. Lanius collurio collurio L. Rep-BackEpD SHrrkE.— As its name 
implies, this bird was easily recognized by its reddish brown upper plum- 
age. Jt was a scarce and irregular summer resident, haunting thickets and 
underbrush bordering open fields. The first bird was seen June 2, and on 
July 7 several were found about thickets at the lower end of the lake. 
They were invariably silent and timid. 

34. Lanius senator senator L. Woopcuat Surike.— This bird, 
with its conspicuous plumage, underparts white, wings and tail black, and 
top of head and neck light brown, was a plentiful summer resident about 
thickets and underbrush bordering open fields or roads. In habits it was 
typical of its family, stationing itself in the top of a bush or tree, from which 
at intervals it dropped to the ground for food. The first bird was seen 
April 24, and on May 5 one was heard singing for the first time, the song 
being a hoarse, erratic warble. On August 11 the last bird for the year was 
seen in the top of a tree at the edge of an open field. 

35. Muscicapa striata striata (Pall.). Sporrep FriycatcHer.— 
This dull plumaged little Flycatcher was a plentiful simmer resident. It 
was seen largely at the edge of the pine woods or in the small scattered 
groves of oaks or alders, and never far from open fields or streams. The 
first bird was seen May 5, and within a few weeks they were of common 
occurrence. Always silent, however, and a little timid, they were far 
from conspicuous. The last bird was seen on October 21 feeding at the 
edge of a field. 

36. Muscicapa hypoleuca hypoleuca (Pall.). Prep FuycaTcHER.— 
Throughout the spring and summer none of these birds were seen, but 
during the fall migration they were quite plentiful. The first bird 
appeared on August 25, and within a short time they were much in evidence. 
Unlike the preceding species, they were more or less noisy, uttering most of 
the time a sharp chip. They were seen largely at the edges of the woods, 
frequently in company with the Tits. The last bird was seen October 6, 
several being observed on that date. 

37. Hirundo rustica rustica (L.). Camry SwaLttow.— In appear- 


[oct 


504 BurueicH, Bird-life in Southwestern France. 
- ance this bird closely resembled our Barn Swallow, and in habits and notes 
differed from it in no way. Flying by overhead or circling about the barn 
in which was its nest, it had the same cheery twitter and the same happy 
disposition. It was plentiful about both the scattered farms and the towns, 
and nested indiscriminately under the eaves of the sheds, the barns, rail- 
road stations, and houses. The first bird was seen March 29, five being 
observed flying low over a field, and by April 13 they could be found 
everywhere. On June 6 young nestlings of the first brood were well 
grown. On June 12 a nest with four fresh eggs was found on a beam under 
the eaves of a railroad station. The nest was of pellets of mud and grasses, 
with a lining of feathers. The eggs were white, spotted over the entire 
surface with varying shades of brown. Another, on the 27th of June, held 
five fresh eggs, and was on a beam under the eaves of a small shed at the 
side of aroad. <A third, on July 10, held three slightly incubated eggs and 
was under the eaves of a railroad station. <A fourth, found at Dax on the 
12th of July, held four slightly incubated eggs and was on a beam in the 
roof of a baleony of a hotel. By August 18 the birds were found gathering 
into flocks, fifty being seen at one place on telephone wires at the side of a 
road. On September 1 a flock was noticed noisily convening in the top of 
a large sycamore. This habit of alighting in trees was found to be a com- 
mon practice with this species. The last birds for the year were seen 
November 10, a flock of ten being found at the edge of Sangon, feeding 
about an old church. 

38. Chelidon urbica urbica L. Housr Martin.— In appearance 
this bird, with the exception of its white rump, resembled closely our Tree 
Swallow. It was a plentiful summer resident about all the towns, there 
being none in which one pair at least could not be found nesting. The 
first bird was seen April 28, and on May 16 a pair were seen working on a 
newly started nest under the eaves of a house. A nest found June 14 held 
four fresh eggs and was under the eaves of a railroad station, on the top 
of an old nest of the Chimney Swallow. This was an unusual situation, for 
all the others found were plestered against the sides of the buildings, with 
no support of any kind. The nests were flask-shaped, of pellets of mud and 
grasses, with a lining inside of grasses and feathers. The eggs were white, 
unspotted. Fully fledged young were seen still being fed in the nest on 
July 28. The last birds for the year were seen October 24, a flock of ten 
being found feeding over an open field with a number of Chimney Swallows. 
At all times these birds were quite sociable, and it was seldom that a single 
pair were found nesting alone. 


39. Riparia riparia riparia (L.). Sanp Martin. — This bird is 


of course our familiar Bank Swallow. Jt was for some reason but an 
irregular migrant, although there were many banks suitable for it to nest in. 
During the spring it was seen but once, five birds being found April 28, 
feeding over the lower end of the lake. August 11 it was seen again, this 
time twenty birds being found on a telephone wire at the side of a road. 
August 18 a flock of fully a hundred was observed at almost the same spot. 


eye Burueian, Bird-life in Southwestern France. 505 
1t was seen for the last time September 22, a single bird feeding over an 
open field with several Chimney Swallows. 

40. Chloris chloris chloris (L.). Grepenrincu.— This was a plenti- 
ful summer resident about the towns and the scattered farms. With its 
dull greenish plumage, it would have been easily passed by but for its char- 
acteristic song, a prolonged lazy drawl. This was frequently heard during 
the heat of the day, when other birds were silent, and so was more noticeable. 
The first birds were seen April 21, a flock flying into the top of a tree ahead 
of me. They were soon plentiful and remained so until early fall. In 
flight they uttered a note much like that of a Crossbill, and this resemblance 
was heightened by the way in which they tore apart pine cones for the seeds 
they contained. September 26 a small flock was seen for the last time. 

41. Carduelis carduelis carduelis. Go.princu.— This pretty little 
bird proved to be but a migrant only. During the spring it was very scarce, 
for it was seen but once. On April 24 one bird was seen in the top of a 
small tree at the edge of afield. From early fall on, however, it was almost 
plentiful and small flocks were frequently encountered. September 2 
fifteen were found feeding on weed seeds at the edge of a millet field, and 
flocks of this size were of more or less common occurrence for the next few 
months. On October 22 fully a hundred were found feeding together in an 
open field. The last record for the year was November 21, two birds flying 
by overhead. 

42. Spinus spinus spinus. Siskin.— For a few weeks in early 
spring this species was fairly plentiful, feeding in the alders and scattered 
poplars along the streams. 1t was seen for the first time on March 10, when 
a flock of fifty of these birds was found feeding in the alders bordering a 
small creek. They were very restless, seldom remaining quiet long, and 
uttering a harsh twitter as they moved about. Another note that was 
commonly heard was a low call quite like that of our Goldfinch. On March 
29 the last birds were seen, several flying by overhead. 

43. Serinus canarius serinus (L.). Serin Firncu.—In size and 
actions this species resembled the last, but in plumage was quite unlike it. 
The throat and breast were yellow, the sides of the latter well streaked with 
brown. The cheeks were reddish brown. The upper parts were brown, 
with a patch of yellow on the neck. \1t was a plentiful summer resident in 
the open country about the edges of the towns and about the scattered 
farms. The first bird was seen April 21, singing from the top of a tree at 
the edge of a field. The song was buzzing in nature, prolonged, and far 
from musical, and so distinctive that the birds were easily recognized when- 
ever heard. On May 27 a nest was found with one fresh egg, fifteen feet 
from the ground at the outer end of a limb of a small oak at the side of a 
road. Jt was made of fine rootlets and bits of wool, well lined with chicken 
feathers, and sparingly covered externally with lichens. Another found 
June 5 with newly hatched young was fifteen feet from the ground, at the 
outer end of a limb of a small maritime pine at the edge of a stretch of woods. 
lt was made of grasses, well lined with chicken feathers, and covered 


506 Burueicu, Bird-life in Southwestern France. Auk 


externally with lichens. By the first of September the birds were seen in 
small flocks, but a few were still singing. October 22 three were found 
feeding at the edge of a field, and were the last seen for the year. 

44. Passer domesticus domesticus (L.). Housr Sparrow. 

45. Passer montanus montanus (L.). Tree Sparrow.— These 
two species were found in the towns and about some of the farms, and were 
plentiful and noisy wherever seen. They were much alike in appearance, 
the latter differing from the former in having the white of the throat ex- 
tending up and forming a collar on the lower part of the neck. They 
appeared to associate indiscriminately, and one was about as much of a 
nuisance as the other. 

46. Fringilla ccoelebs celebs L. Cuarrincu.— This species was 
undoubtedly the most plentiful of any of those found in France. It was 
resident, and although seen largely in the open cultivated country was of 
common occurrence in the pine woods, feeding in the upper branches of 
the larger trees. During the winter the birds wandered about in small 
flocks, and although never scarce they became unusually numerous dur- 
ing late February and early March, when their numbers were probably 
augmented by those which had wintered farther south. By the middle of 
March they had begun to scatter out and were soon seen commonly in 
pairs. On the 17th of March the first bird was heard singing. The song 
was a rapid, rich warble, reminding me much of our Vesper Sparrow, but 
fuller and clearer. On April 21 a female was seen gathering bits of wool 
from the side of a road, and on May 12 the first nest was found. This, 
like all the others later seen, was made of green moss, lined with soft grasses, 
feathers, and horsehair, and well covered externally with lichens. 1t held 
four fresh eggs and was fifteen feet from the ground, in a crotch against the 
trunk of a large cork oak at the side of a road. The eggs were bluish gray- 
clouded at the larger end with lilac, and sparingly spotted with brown. 
Another nest found the same day held three slightly incubated eggs, and 
was twenty-five feet from the ground, at the outer end of a limb of a large 
cork oak at the side of a road. A third nest, the 19th of May, held four 
slightly incubated eggs and was eight feet from the ground, in a crotch of 
a small maritime pine at the edge of some underbrush bordering a road. 
The last nest found the 7th of July, with four slightly incubated eggs, was 
thirty feet from the ground, at the outer end of a limb of a large sycamore 
at the side of a road. Toward the end of July the birds were gathering 
into small flocks again and soon few individual birds could be seen. On 
October 6 a flock of fully five hundred of these birds was found feeding at 
the edge of a large millet field. 

47. Pyrrhula pyrrhula europea Vieill. BuiLurincu.— This species, 
one of the handsomest in France, was seen only during the fall migration, 
but it was fairly plentifulthen. The first bird was seen October 27, when 
one adult male was found feeding in a thicket at the edge of afield. Itwas a 
little timid, and on being approached flew away with a low, querulous note, 
distinctive of this species alone. For the next two months these birds 


eas ve BurueicH, Bird-life in Southwestern France. 507 


were frequently encountered in small flocks, usually two or three together, 
and never more than four. They seemed to show a preference for water, 
for they were largely found in alders and underbrush bordering streams and 
ponds. They probably remained until early spring, for several were seen 
as late as December 22. 

48. Emberiza calandra calandra L. Common Buntine.— This bird 
was seen only during the fall migration and then it was very scarce. But 
two birds were recorded, one October 22 and the other October 25, feeding 
each time in underbrush bordering an open field. In general appearance 
and actions they reminded me much of our Song Sparrow. 

49. Emberiza cirlus L. Cirt Buntrnc.—On December 14 one 
bird was seen feeding with a small flock of Reed Buntings at the edge of a 
millet field. This was my only record for the occurrence of this species. 

50. Emberiza schoeeniclus schoeniclus L. Rrep Buntina.— It was 
only during the fall migration that these birds were seen, but they were 
fairly plentiful then. They occurred in small flocks and were largely found 
feeding in millet fields. The first birds were seen October 22 and the last 
small flock December 22. When approached they did not fly until almost 
stepped on, and then flew up suddenly, uttering as they went a character- 
istic high-pitched note. This, with their white outer tail feathers, made 
them easy to identify. 

51. Motacilla alba alba L. Wauirre Wacraru.— Resident, and plen- 
tiful about open fields, especially those under cultivation. Although seen 
occasionally on a fence post, they were rarely found off the ground, and 
were essentially birds of the meadows and pastures. On one occasion, 
however, September 15, three were frightened from an alder thicket in the 
branches of which they had evidently been feeding. They occurred 
largely singly or two or three birds together. Small flocks were encountered 
but very seldom. On June 1 five fully grown young were seen, out of the 
nest several days at least. 

52. Motacilla flava flava L. Gray-Heapep Wactatu.— Unlike the 
last this bird was only a winter resident. Jt was common about water, and 
there were no ponds or streams of any size about which one or two could 
not be found feeding during the fall and winter. Single birds were fre- 
quently seen, but small flocks were of equally common occurrence. In 
the spring the last bird was recorded March 17. The first one appeared 
again August 25, and within a week they were quite plentiful. On Sep- 
tember 8 they were unusually numerous along the shore of the lake, and 
were observed in small flocks, feeding close to the heads of grazing cattle. 
This habit was later found to be a common one with this species. 
On September 15 a flock of fully fifty of these birds was seen, scattered 
about several cows in the middle of a field. 

53. Anthus trivialis trivialis (L.). Tree Pirrr.— In appearance 
and actions this bird was very similar to our Pipit. It was resident and 
plentiful throughout the year. During the fall and winter it occurred in 


e flocks of varying size, feeding in cultivated fields and pastures, but on the 


[oe 


508 Bur veicH, Bird-life in Southwestern France. 
approach of spring the flocks broke up and the birds were soon seen singly 
or in pairs scattered through the pine woods. Here they were frequently 
flushed from the ground, but were as often seen in the trees. The song, 
which was frequently heard during the spring and early summer, was given 
on the wing while fluttering overhead or from the top of a tree. 

54. Alauda arvensis arvensis, L. SkyLarK.— This bird occurred as a 
migrant only. During the spring it was scarce and was seen but twice. 
February 24 a flock of fully a hundred of these birds was found feeding in a 
newly plowed field, and on March 17 two were flushed while crossing a 
millet field. In flight they uttered a low, gurgling note, but otherwise 
were silent and inconspicuous. October 19 they were seen again for the 
first time and almost at once were plentiful, small flocks being frequently 
encountered, flying by overhead or feeding in the cultivated fields. At this 
time they were restless and noisy, seldom remaining on the ground long, 
and continually uttering their low gurgling note and another short, high- 
pitched call. On October 25 two hundred were seen in one flock. The 
last bird was seen November 21, two being flushed from the edge of a millet 
field. 

55. Lullula arborea arborea (L.). Woopiark.— On September 22 
five birds were found at one place circling high overhead over a large field, 
singing. Occasionally one would drop down into the top of a tree, or to 
the ground, only to fly high into the air again, still singing. This was my 
first record for the occurrence of this species, and ] saw it but once again 
when, November 18, two birds were flushed from the edge of a newly 
plowed field. 

56. Apus apus apus (L.). Swirr.— In size and general appearance 
this bird resembled our Chimney Swift, but differed in having a forked tail, 
the end of which was smooth, without barbs. It was a summer resident 
and plentiful in and about the towns. The first bird was seen May 5 and 
within a few days they were of common occurrence. On May 16 many 
were feeding over the town of Ponteux toward dusk, and were noisy and 
mating then, chasing each other about with an often repeated, high-pitched 
squeal. On July 7 birds were noticed evidently feeding young, five being 
seen entering crevices in the tile roof of a house. Although still numerous 
up to the middle of July, they suddenly became scarce, and on July 21 the 
last ones for the year were seen, several circling and feeding overhead. 

57. Caprimulgus europeus europzeus L. Nicutsar.— This bird 
closely resembled in appearance and actions our Whip-poor-will and was 
a plentiful summer resident in the pine woods, especially at the edge 
of slashings or fields overgrown with furze and briars, in which places they 
nested. On June 18, while crossing a slashing, a female was flushed from 
two well-incubated eggs lying on a litter of pine bark at the foot of a briar. 
The eggs were creamy white, marbled with lilac and brown. On June 27 
a bird was seen at dusk calling from a tree at the side of a road through the 
woods, uttering a deep rolling, churr-r-r-r, with a rising and falling in- 


Reesor | BurueiaH, Bird-life in Southwestern France. 509 


flection. This note was frequently heard for the next month, but about 
the first of August the birds became silent and soon disappeared. 

58. Dryobates major (L.).! Great Sporrep WoopreckeR.— In gen- 
eral appearance and notes this bird resembled our Hairy Woodpecker, 
but there was one striking difference. The under tail coverts were a bright 
red. Like our species, it was noisy but wary, and although frequently 
heard, for it was resident and plentiful in the pine woods, it was usually 
seen from a distance. A nest found June 2 held large young and was 
thirty feet from the ground, in the trunk of a sycamore at the edge of a 
stretch of woods bordering a pond. 

59. Dryobates minor (L.). Lesser Spotrep WoopPEcKEeR.— On 
May 17 two birds were seen at the edge of a slashing in the woods. 
This was my only record for the occurrence of this species. In appearance 
they reminded me much of our Downy Woodpecker, being like the preced- 
ing species, but much smaller. 

60. Picus viridis viridis L.. Gremn Wooprreckrer.— At a distance 
this bird reminded me much of our Flicker, for it was practically the 
same size, and had the same bounding flight and the conspicuous white 
rump. A close view, however, showed the greenish yellow tinge of its 
plumage, from which it received its name. It was resident and plentiful 
throughout the pine woods, but while noisy and often heard it was less 
often seen, for it was wary and hard to approach. Several times, however, 
birds were found feeding on the ground at the edge of a slashing or of a 
field, and then did not fly so quickly. On May 26 a nest was found with 
six fresh eggs, fifteen feet from the ground, in the trunk of a small oak in the 
middle of a short stretch of woods. The cavity was fully a foot and a half 
deep, and on the chips on the bottom of it the glossy white eggs were lying. 

61. Jynx torquilla torquilla L. WryNnecx.— On September 2 one 
bird was seen feeding on the ground at the side of a road. This was my 
only record for the occurrence of this species. 

62. Alcedo ispida ispida L. KrinerisHpr.— This bird was but an 
irregular straggler and was seen but twice along the same small stream, 
October 27 and November 1. On the latter date the one bird, as it flew 
by me upstream, uttered at intervals a short, shrill note. 

63. Upupa epops epops L. Hooron.— This bird was a summer resi- 
dent and fairly plentiful in the open cultivated country. The first one 
appeared about the middle of April, and from that date on one could fre- 
quently be heard uttering its loud, rolling cry from the top of some large tree. 
On May 29 a nest was found with small young, eight feet from the ground, 
in a natural cavity in the trunk of a large oak ina grove of trees about a 
farm house. There was no evidence of any attempt to construct a nest, 
the young lying on the foul-smelling decayed wood. Both the male and 
female were seen feeding their young. The female herself refused at first 
to flush from the nest, and on attempting to remove her she fluttered vio- 
lently about, uttering a loud, hissing grunt and seeming, with her long neck 


1 Subspecies undetermined. 


[ocr 


510 BurueicH, Bird-life in Southwestern France. 
and raised crest, almost formidable. August 11 the last birds were seen 
for the year, four flying by overhead. 

64. Cuculus canorus canorus L. Cuckxoo.— A plentiful summer 
resident. On April 11 one was heard for the first time uttering its loud 
“ cuckoo ” from the edge of a stretch of pine woods, and within a few days 
they seemed to be everywhere. On April 17 they seemed to be especially 
noisy and could be heard anywhere and at any time during the day. In 
appearance they were about the same size as our Sparrow Hawk and had 
the same narrow build and flight, and so reminded me much of this bird. 
May 5 two were seen mating, the male chasing the female about with 
drooping wings and tail outspread, uttering meanwhile a low, hoarse grunt. 
June 16 several were heard, but after that date they became silent and dis- 
appeared entirely. 

65. Strix aluco aluco L. Brown Owu.— Two birds were seen Sep- 
tember 14 in a Lombardy poplar at the side of a road, harassed by a small 
flock of Long-tailed Tits. This was my only record for the occurrence of 
this species. 

66. Circus eruginosus (L.). MarsH Harrir.— On August 18 one 
bird was flushed from the edge of the woods bordering the lake. Jt was 
surprisingly unsuspicious, not flying until approached within a few feet. 
This was my one record for the occurrence of this species. 

67. Circus cyaneus (L.). Hen Harrier.— On December 19 one 
bird, an adult, in the light bluish plumage, was seen circling and beating 
low over a large slashing in the pine woods. This was my only record for 
the occurrence of this species. 

68. Buteo buteo buteo (L.). Common Buzzarp.— This bird was the 
most plentiful and the most frequently seen of any of this family. 1t was 
resident, and was observed throughout the year, flying low through the pine 
woods or soaring high overhead. During early spring it was rather noisy, 
and its seream was remarkably like that of our Red-shouldered Hawk. 

69. Pandion haliaétus haliaétus (L.). Osprey.— Two birds were 
seen June 23 hovering over the lake, and were the only ones of this species 
recorded. Observed from a distance, they appeared to differ in no way 
from our Osprey. 

70. Accipiter nisus nisus (L.). Sparrow Hawx.— This bird was 
evidently resident and fairly plentiful in the pine woods. In appearance 
it was very similar to our Sharp-shinned Hawk and possessed the same 
habits and notes. On August 18 two were seen circling and soaring 
noisily overhead. 

71. Falco tinnuculus tinnuculus L. Kesrreu.— This bird closely 
resembled our Sparrow Hawk in appearance, actions, and notes. It was 
resident and fairly plentiful in the open cultivated country, where it was 
frequently seen hovering with rapidly beating wings over open fields. 

72. Ardea cinerea L. Common Heron.— Jn size and general appear- 
ance this bird was much like our Great Blue Heron. Jt was but an irregu- 
lar straggler, for it was seen but twice about the lake. On July 7 four birds 


VSS eee BurweiGcH, Bird-life in Southwestern France. oll 


were flushed from the edge of the water at the upper end of the lake, and 
September 1 two birds were found at almost the same spot. 

73. Anas platyrhynchos platyrhynchos L. Wi.p Ducx.— This bird 
resembled in every way our Mallard — size, plumage, habits, etc. It was 
a scarce migrant, and was found along the small streams or in the alder 
swamps. April 13 the first birds were seen, a male and female being flushed 
from a small pond at the edge of a stretch of woods. For the next few weeks 
one or two were occasionally observed, and April 29 the last ones for the 
spring were recorded. Three were seen that day circling over an alder 
swamp, and seemingly mating. The only record for the fall migration was 
December 25, four birds being flushed from a small stream. 

74. Columba palumbus palumbus L. Woop Picron.— This bird 
reminded me much of our common domestic pigeon, the main difterence 
being the white wing bar, conspicuous in flight. It was also, however, 
somewhat larger. It occurred as a migrant and was, especially in the fall, 
very plentiful. In the spring it was seen but one day, February 24, but on 
that day was much in evidence, large flocks going by overhead for hours at 
atime. ®ctober 24— it was seen again, a flock of fully five hundred birds 
flying by high overhead. This was the largest number observed at one time, 
for, although for the next three weeks flocks of varying size were encoun- 
tered, seventy-five were the most found together, and occasionally eight or 
ten only. They were seen in the tops of the pines and appeared to feed 
there entirely, never being flushed from the ground. December 15 the 
last birds for the year were seen, four flying from the edge of a short stretch 
of woods. 

75. Streptopelia turtur turtur (L.). Turtite Dove.— This bird 
reminded me much of our Mourning Dove, but unlike it was a very scarce 
summer resident. The first bird appeared April 26, one being flushed from 
the upper branches of a pine at the edge of a stretch of woods. From that 
date on one was seen at infrequent intervals, flying by overhead or feeding 
at the edge of open fields. August 18 two birds were found feeding at the 
edge of the woods, but none were observed after that date. 

76. Gallinula chloropus chloropus (L.). Moor Hren.— This bird, 
so much lke our Purple Gallinule in appearance, was seen but once. 
On July 28 two adult birds, with one half-grown young, were found feeding 
in the lily pads at the edge of a stretch of reeds bordering the lake. 

77. Fulica atra atra L. Coor.— This bird was a searce and irregular 
migrant, although several times it was seen in large numbers. March 10 
some sixty of them were found at the lower end of the lake, feeding among 
the reeds close to the shore. None were then seen until August 18, when 
two of them were observed, this time at the upper end of the lake. Decem- 
ber 15 one bird was flushed along a small stream, and December 22 fully a 
hundred were found feeding along the shore of the lake. In appearance 
this bird closely resembled our Coot. 

78. Squatarola squatarola. BuLAcK-BELLIED PLover.— On May 12 
four birds in full summer plumage were seen feeding in an open field at the 


[oct 


512 Burueicu, Bird-life in Southwestern France. 
edge of a pool formed by an overflow of the lake. This was my only record 
for the occurrence of this species. 

79. Charadrius hiaticula hiaticula L. Riycep PLover.—’On 
May 19 two small flocks were seen, one on the ocean beach and the other 
on a sand bar in the middle of a stream. This was the only day on which 
this species was found here. 

80. Vanellus vanellus (L.). Lapwinc.— On April 28 one bird was 
seen feeding on marshy ground at the edge of the lake. This was my one 
record for the occurrence of this species. 

81. Scolopax rusticola L. Woopcocx.— On November 21 one bird 
was flushed from the edge of a stretch of woods bordering a stream. This 
was my only record for the occurrence of this species. 

82. Gallinago gallinago gallinago (L.). Common Snrpe.—In 
appearance, actions, and notes this bird resembled in every way our Wilson’s 
Snipe. It was a scarce migrant and was found in open, marshy places. 
During the spring it was seen but once, two birds being flushed on March 3 
from the edge of a small stream in an open field. For the fall migration 
there were but two records, two birds on September 1 circling noisily 
high over the lake, and two on September 2 feeding at the edge of a marshy 
field. 

83. Pelidna alpina alpina (L.). Duniin.— This little Sandpiper 
was easily recognized by the conspicuous black on its flanks. 1t was seen 
but once, four birds being found on May 19 feeding on a sand bar in the 
middle of a stream. 

84. Tringa ocrophus L. GreEN SaNnppirpeR.— This bird, so similar 
in appearance to our Solitary Sandpiper, was seen but once, one bird being 
found on April 11 feeding at the upper end of a large pond. 

85. Tringa glareola L. Woop Sanpprper.— On June 23 one bird 
was seen feeding in a marshy field bordering the lake. This was my only 
record for the occurrence of this species. 

86. Actitis hypoleucas (L.). Common Sanppiper.— This_ bird 
closely resembled in actions our Spotted Sandpiper, being a common sum- 
mer resident about the streams and the few scattered ponds. Jt was first 
seen April 21, and within a week was already fairly plentiful. In late sum- 
mer small flocks began to appear, and on August 25 fully thirty of these 
birds were found feeding together at the upper end of the lake. The last 
one for the year was seen September 28 about a small stream. 

87. Tringa totanus (L.). Common ReEpsHaNK.— As its name 


implies, this bird was easily recognized by its long bright red legs and also 


by the white in its wings, conspicuous in flight. 1t was fairly plentiful as a 
spring migrant, and one pair remained late enough to have possibly nested. 
The first birds were seen May 19, six being found feeding on a sand bar in 
the middle of a stream, and for the next month or so small flocks were 
occasionally encountered, either on the ocean beach or along the shore of 
the lake. At the latter place two lingered until July 28, and there is a bare 
chance of their having bred there. 


Bh 


eat eed Errric, Birds of the Chicago Area. B13 


88. Tringa nebularia (Gunner). GREENSHANK.— In appearance 
this bird reminded me much of our Lesser Yellowlegs. It was seen but 
once, five birds being found on April 28 feeding in an inch or so of water 
in an open field at the edge of the lake. 

89. Larus fuscus fuscus L. Lesser Buack-BAcKEpD GuuL.— On 
March 10 twenty birds were seen feeding along the ocean beach at low tide. 
This was my only record for the occurrence of this species. 

90. Larus argentatus L. Herring Guiu.— This bird was seen but 
once, some twenty of them being found on December 26 feeding along the 
ocean beach. 


NOTES ON BIRDS OF THE CHICAGO AREA AND ITS 
IMMEDIATE VICINITY. 


BYG Crm iWier Ge OO LMRIG: 


WHILE using the Christmas vacation of 1918-19 to transcribe 
an accumulated mass of bird notes from my “day book”’ into my 
“ledger,” 7. ¢., entering them under the names of the species, an 
intention of several years standing was strengthened into action, 
namely, to write up some interesting or striking experiences with 
and observations of birds and to record several rare occurrences. 
In the latter phase of the work, my friend and companion on many 
trips, Mr. H. L. Stoddard of the Harris Public School Extension of 
Field Museum, now in France, has lately rendered yeoman service 
by recording the seeing or taking of such rare species as the Long- 
tailed Jaeger, Black Rail, Roseate Tern, Picoides arcticus, Hoary 
Redpoll, Evening Grosbeak, Prairie Warbler and others (Auk, 
Vols. XX XIIfand XXXIV). This present writing, then, is in part 
at least a continuation of his work, with the addition of such mate- 
rial as seems to me to be worthy of record. Many of my trips 
for years past have been to the Sand Dunes of northwestern Indi- 
ana, extending along the south shore of Lake Michigan from Gary 
on the west — the city made to order — to Michigan City on the 
east, a distance of twenty-five miles, by one to two miles wide. 
This is an immensely interesting region for various classes of nature 


014 Errric, Birds of the Chicago Area. oe 


lovers and nature students, to which frequent trips, one may almost 
say pilgrimages, are made by such varied organizations as the 
Geographic Society of Chicago, the Ornithological Society, the 
Prairie Club, the Friends of Our Native Landscape, and numerous 
classes in geography, geology, botany, zodlogy and _ especially 
ecology from the local universities and other institutions of learn- 
ing. <A part of this unique region is now proposed to be made into 
a national park before it falls prey to the further encroachments of 
steel mills, etc., as at Gary, and all members of the A. O. U. hav- 
ing a chance to aid in advocating this plan should not fail to do so. 


Hydrochelidon nigra surinamensis. Biack Trern.— The breeding 
grounds of this species, the large cattail swamps, are being sadly encroached 
upon by filling in and draining, and are replaced by large industrial plants 
or by fields. This is notably true of two of their once greatest breeding 
grounds in the country, the Calumet marshes, in the southern part of 
Chicago, around Lake Calumet and Wolf and Hyde Lakes, and the other, 
the famous Worth region, now drained by a large drainage canal. The 
fields now started there, and the chemical works going up in their place, 
with their pestilential effluvia and smoke, may be a necessity, but one 
hates to see this change. Still, we have seen hundreds of these Terns on 
Lake Calumet, September 4, 1915, and at Millers, Indiana, August 30, 1916, 
where they were diving into the schools of minnows near the water’s edge 
of Lake Michigan, flying parallel with it, a few yards from shore. While 
most of the adults are then in their winter plumage, several were seen in 
the deep black nuptial dress. 

Sterna caspia. Caspian TrerRN.— This large Tern may be seen on 
certain days during migration in large numbers over the lagoons in Jackson 
and Lincoln Parks, and in the places named under the preceding species. 
When there is a strong east wind, Lake Calumet, in the southern part of 
the city, is alive with them, as well as with the Common, Forster’s, and 
Black Terns, and the Herring, Ring-billed, and Bonaparte’s Gulls. This 
also holds good for the south end of Lake Michigan. 

Sterna forsteri. ForstTeR’s TeRN.— In the large Tern flocks along the 
lake shore near Millers, this species often predominates in number. On the 
wing it can be told from Sterna hirundo by its larger size and whiter, 
more silvery appearance, especially on the lower parts. August 30, 1916, 
we saw about 200 near Millers, Lake County, Indiana. 

Phalocrocorax auritus auritus. DouBLE-cRESTED CORMORANT.— 
This species, still breeding along the Jllinois River, in the central part of the 
state, is not common here. A female in my collection was shot here, on 
the lake, October 16, 1917,. 

Mareca penelope. EuropEAN Wincron.— I have in my collection a 
male bird of this species which I obtained from Mr. Kk. W. Kahmann, a 


ce | Eirria, Birds of the Chicago Ar ea. SUD 


Chicago taxidermist. Unfortunately he did not record nor remember the 
place and date of its capture, but was positive that it had been taken near 
Chicago. 

Somateria spectabilis. Kina E1per.— On November 29, 1917, six or 
seven of this species were shot out of a flock of about thirty, oft the Muni- 
cipal Pier. They were all birds of the year, and one of them is now in 
my collection. Woodruff’s ‘ Birds of the Chicago Area,’ 1907, does not 
give it. 

Chen cerulescens. Buiur Goosr.— Stoddard saw a flock of about 
forty of them, together with six Snow Geese (probably C. h. hyperboreus), 
on the lake shore near Gary, October 21, 1916, from which he took a fine 
adult male Blue Goose. He thinks they are probably rather common on 
certain days during the fall migration at the south end of the lake. 

Branta canadensis. Canaps Goosr.— While the wedge-formed 
battalions and the martial honking of this migrant are by no means un- 
common here, I would like to record the red-letter day for numbers, that has 
been unique in my experience here or in Canada or elsewhere. It was 
October 23, 1917. We had the first snow of the season, the prelude to that 
memorably severe winter; the atmosphere was thick, there was no sun. 
At 1 o’clock in the afternoon a flock of from 500-1000 appeared from the 
west; apparently right over my house in River Forest, a suburb of Chicago, 
they seemed to become bewildered as to the direction of their course, and 
after loud consultation they turned north, where they seemed to settle 
in a prairie about a mile from here. At 4.30 o’clock 30 flocks were seen, 
each wedge-shaped and touching here and there; at 7 o’clock the air was 
again full of cries of large numbers, as also at 10 o’clock p.m. Whether 
any, and if so how many passed while ] was in the class room, I do not 
know. 

Some winters a flock remains in the vicinity, spending the day out 
on the edge of the ice in the lake, and the night inland on some cornfield 
of the previous season. Thus, January 23, 1916, about 200 were flying 
south. March 18, 1916, Stoddard and J] came upon what seemed a con- 
vention or debating club of about forty of them. They were on the edge 
of the ice in the lake near Millers, and were all talking at once at the top of 
their voices. As the ice is then piled up high by the winter’s storms, on the 
south end of the lake, we could not get within a quarter of a mile to them, 
and they seemed to know it, and kept right on. On April 1, 1916, while in 
the same place, a flock of thirty came from the south; at first they were in 
the usual formation; suddenly, as if by command, they straightened out in 
company line, and then suddenly and simultaneously they dropped to the 
lake, head first, as if they wanted to dive to the bottom. Jt was a most 
remarkable sight; the quickness and precision of the movements were 
baffling. 

Nycticorax nycticorax nevius. BuLack-cRowNED Nicut HERoN.— 
This species must find it hard to hold its own against the army of boys 
and men with shooting irons pouring out from the great city into the sur- 


516 Errria, Birds of the Chicago Area. ae 


rounding country on certain days. But they seem to be able to do so. 
In addition to the Addison heronry, which ] reported several years ago, 
I found another large and flourishing one at Orland, about twenty miles 
southwest of the city. On May 19, 1917, there were from 150 to 200 nests 
in it, all 30-40 feet up in oak trees; some contained young recently hatched, 
others eggs on the point of hatching, or fresh. Two sets of five were 
seen. This in spite of the fact that this spring was the coldest one known 
in many years hereabouts there being frosts till the end of May, and 
slight ones up to June 16. May 30,1914, I also saw a flock of eight at Elk 
Grove, ina swampy wooded tract, which probably had their nests 
near by. 

Grus mexicana. SanpHr_u Crann.— A friend of mine at Crete, about 
thirty miles south of here, who is familiar with this species from a twenty 
years’ residence in Texas, reported six flying over his village, September 11, 
1915. Stoddard, who lived among them in Florida, saw three at Dune 
Park, April 7, 1917. 

Steganopus tricolor. Wutson’s PHatarope.— Mr. E. W. Nelson, 
in his ‘ Birds of Northeastern Illinois,’ 1876, says of the status of this 
species for our area, ‘“‘ Very common summer resident in this vicinity. 
Found in abundance about damp prairies and on grassy marshes.’ This 
has changed for the worse. Its former haunts are now turned into fields 
and factories. Personally I have seen it twice only, once at Addison, 
May 12, 1910, and the other time at Hyde Lake, May 31, 1912. In the 
still extensive marshes about this latter place a small company of them 
still nests nearly every year. Nests with eggs have in the last years been 
found by Stoddard, Abbott, and Mr. W. D. Richardson. 

Tringa canutus. Knor.— Probably less rare than supposed in 
migration. Stoddard took a male in breeding plumage near Millers, Ind., 
June 2, 1917, others September 2, 1916. 1] collected one out of a flock of 
Sanderlings on the beach near Millers, September 25, 1916. 

Pisobia bairdi. Barrp’s Sanppreer.— A rare migrant. Stoddard 
took one at Dune Park, Porter County, Indiana, August 23, 1916, and two 
near Millers, September 2, 1916. 

Tryngites subruficollis. Burr-preastep SANDPIPER.— Another rare 
migrant. Stoddard took one at Millers, August 30, 1916.— Perhaps these 
rare Sandpipers would turn out to be less rare, if one could patrol the beach 
from Gary to Dune Park daily during migration. 

Bartramia longicauda. Upianp PiLover.— Early in May, 1917, 
my son told me of a bird acting strangely near their baseball diamond, a few 
rods from the house. 1 took it to be a Killdeer, and paid no attention to it. 
On the 11th one of the students told me of having found a nest in the grass 
near my house, containing four large eggs. On the 14th ] got him to show 
it to me, and imagine my surprise when ] found it to be the nest of this 
species. 1] had seen none of the birds there all spring, but here were the 
eggs. Unfortunately a Crow had found them before we came, because 


Va teed Errric, Birds of the Chicago Area. aLT 


three of the eggs were out of the nest and picked open, only one remaining 
whole. 

figialitis meloda. Pririna PLover.— While this nimble beach sprite is 
no longer so plentiful as when Mr. Nelson wrote, who counted thirty breed- 
ing pairs within two miles along the beach north of the city, it has not 
suffered itself to be brushed aside entirely. In a walk along the beach 
from Millers to Mineral Springs, Indiana, a distance of twelve miles, one 
may see two or three pair of these diminutive Plovers, as on April 22, 1917. 

Bonasa umbellus umbellus. Rurrep Grouse.— As is to be expected, 
this handsome forest bird has vanished from all its former haunts near the 
metropolis. Only in the Dunes it has been able to hold out. Even here 
its hold is rendered precarious by hunters and more so by the Great Horned 
Owl. - March 11, 1916, I flushed three at Mineral Springs, where one may 
usually see one or two in the tamarack swamp, but we have also seen them 
near Millers. Dr. A. Lewy found the remains of one in a Great Horned 
Owl’s nest. : 

Cathartes aura septentrionalis. Turkey Vuiture.— This species 
israre here. In nine years ] have seen it once only, and that on April 21, 
1917, when one passed low over Thatcher’s woods, River Forest. Stoddard 
saw three at Tremont, Indiana, in the Dunes, July 4, 1917. 

Circus hudsonius. Marsa Hawx.— This is the commonest Hawk 
here, with the possibility that in parts of our area the Red-shouldered may 
be more numerous. The large and small swales in the sand dunes are 
especially attractive to it, and here one may find five or six nests within a 
mile or two, as Stoddard has actually done at Mineral Springs. We found 
a bird here as early as January 6, 1917, and five to six on March 11, 1916. 
Nests are found the second half of May. 

Astur a. atricapillus. GosHawK.— There were large flights of birds 
of this species in the fall of 1915, and again 1916. Mr. Kahmann, the taxi- 
dermist, got 30 or 40 to mount each season. Onein my collection was taken 
at Orland, October 28, 1916. 

Buteo swainsoni. Swarnson’s Hawk.— Nelson says of this bird in 
his list of 1876, ‘‘ As this species breeds in southern Illinois, it probably 
also breeds in the northern portion of the state.’”’ Woodruff quotes this, 
but adds no instances of it having been seen or secured. In nine years 
I have seen only one of what ] took to be this Hawk, at Addison. Mr. 
Kahmann tells me that among the hundreds of Hawks he has mounted, he 
never received one Swainson’s Hawk. Therefore he was much puzzled 
when, on October 27, 1917, he ran into a migrating flock of fifty or more 
which were circling about in bewildering fashion. Finally he secured one, 
which proved to be this species. The rest were all like it. 1t is now in my 
collection. 

Halizetus 1. leucocephalus. Baup Eacur.— As late as twenty years 
ago this species nested regularly in the Dunes, as Woodruff states, but does 
so no longer. Now and then, however, they seem to return as if to once 


518 Eirric, Birds of the Chicago Area. es 


more survey their ancient realm. Stoddard saw one at Millers, October 15, 
1916; ten days later, on the 25th, one passed over our campus here in River 
Forest, and June 17, 1917, Mr. W. D. Richardson saw three at Mineral 
Springs, Porter County, Indiana, in the dune country. 

Falco sparverius sparverius. Sparrow Hawx.— This handsome 
little falcon is by no means common here, either as migrant or summer 
resident. 1n the territory that ] visit ] know of only three or four breeding 
pairs, one in some big elms on the banks of the Desplaines River, and two 
pair at Schaumburg, Cook County, where the parent pair nests year after 
year in a small wooden pinnacle or turret over a buttress in the Lutheran 
church, and the other in a chimney near by. March 25, 1911, I saw one 
dart around among the flocks of Calcarius lapponicus, then in the fields at 
Addison, causing a great panic among them, but as long as ] watched he 
did not catch any. 

Aluco pratincola. Barn Owu.— Very rare here. To the one re- 
corded by Mr. Stoddard (Auk, Vol. XXXII, p. 328), ] can add another. 
Jt was a male bird, shot at Orland, September 29, 1917, and sent to me. 

Asio wilsonianus. LoNG-EARED Owu.— This seems to be almost as 
rare as the preceding species. In the fall of 1916 ] had an interesting 
experience with a pair, or at least two of them. November 29, while out 
with several boys in ‘ Northwood,” a large tract of park-like real estate,, 
we found one in a Norway spruce. Judging from the number of pellets 
below, it or they, as it turned out, must have been there for some time. It 
was there again, on the same limb, on December 3. On the 17th there 
were two, also on the 20th, one always on the same limb. 1] asked every 
visitor to my house, whether ornithologically inclined or not, whether 
he or she would like to interview a pair of Owls, and, usually getting an 
affirmative answer, would take them to that spruce, it being near my home, 
and the birds were always there, allowing close inspection. Once ] showed 
them to some boys, and next time I came there they were gone. 1] gathered 
what pellets remained after the snow was gone, sent them to the Bureau 
of Biological Survey at Washington, whence I learned that they contained 
the remains of thirty meadow mice, one white-footed mouse, ‘and two 
shrews. 

Strix varia varia. Barrep Owni.— This seems to be rarer than 
the preceding species. Jn nine years only one has come to my notice. 
This was shot in the village of River Forest, August 6, 1915, by a dairy- 
man, who objected to it coming to his poultry yard for several days in 
succession, where it was critically eyeing his chickens. 

Cryptoglaux a. acadica. Saw-wHEer Owu.— Another rare species. 
Saw one only in nine years, and the manner of seeing it was somewhat 
unusual. While with some boys in what I eall “ Waller’s Park,’ now 
called ‘‘ Northwoods,’ near my home, an Italian workman came along 
who wanted to throw a bird, whose head he had wrung off, into a fire. 1] 
asked him for it, and it turned out to be this Owl. He said he had caught 
it with his hands in a juniper bush near his house, because it disturbed his 


Seca | E1rric, Birds of the Chicago Area. 519 


sleep at night by its calls. He said there were more around, but close 
search by us failed to reveal them. Stoddard has taken it twice in the 
Dunes. 

Bubo virginianus virginianus. Great Hornep Own.— In addition 
to the records given by Mr. Stoddard (Auk, XXXIJ1J], p. 329), I would add 
these: February 25, 1917, he found a nest at Dune Park, about 30 feet 
up in a Banksian pine, in an old Crow’s nest, containing two eggs; March 
‘4 there were three, which are now in my collection. In 1918 another 
one was found by Dr. A. Lewy at about the same place and time, contain- 
ing two eggs. This was then photographed in all its phases — eggs, young, 
the female on the nest and flying off —by Mr. W. D. Richardson. The 
female would fly off when the pine, which contained the old Crow’s nest, was 
touched, but did not mind the closest kind of approach from the neighbor- 
ing pines, from which the pictures were taken. 

Nyctea nyctea. Snowy Owx.— Every year I hear of two or three 
occurrences of this species. March 14, 1915, one was seen at Proviso in 
this township; November 10 of the same year one was taken at Huntley, 
which I saw after it had been mounted. 

Melanerpes erythrocephalus. Rrp-HEADED WoopPECKER.— A num- 
ber of these occasionally winter in the Dunes, when the acorn crop is 
large. November 30 last I saw fifteen there, near Millers; December 21, 
however, only one or two, and on the 27th, two. 

Colaptes auratus luteus. NorrHprNn Fuicknr.— For four years a 
pair has nested in an electric wire post at the rear of my garden. I 
think it is the same pair, because the first or second Flicker I see about our 
house in the spring usually flies directly to the hole in that pole. It is 
about four feet above ground. June 19, 1917, I witnessed an amusing 
incident of Flicker family life. While working in the garden within a few 
yards of the nest, the male flew to the entrance, rather noisily, as if in great 
glee, whereupon the female, who was inside, darted out at him; her eyes 
seemed to me to flash anger, and she seemed to scold him fearfully. He 
hastily withdrew, apparently much abashed and chagrined. December 22, 
1917, I saw one still lingering at Riverside, four miles south of here, and 
February 17, 1917, we saw one at Mineral Springs, in the Dunes. 

Antrostomus v. vociferus. Wu1p-poor-wiLu.— This species must be 
called rare here. In nine years I have seen only ten. I believe it is 
decreasing in numbers over large parts of its range. During visits to 
western Maryland and other places, where it was formerly common, I have 
lately not seen or heard one. April 18, 1914, which, by the way, was an 
unusually early occurrence of it here, ] had a unique experience with one 
in a woods at Whiting, Indiana, near the Illinois state line. There were 
two there, one of which repeatedly darted at my head. 

Chordeiles v. virginianus. NicHrHawK.— I have so far not found a 
breeding pair here, although there are a few such on record. In spring 
they arrive about May 15 and pass through till the 31st, although in 1912 
I saw one May 3, 5, and 9. They seem to me to be extending their 


520 Errric, Birds of the Chicago Area. lose 


fall migration, however. Wherever I have been so far, in Indiana, Mary- 
land, and Canada, they begin to return about August 12 to 15, winding 
up with a few stragglers during the first week in September. Of late years, 
however, I find them later and later, as witness these dates: September 14, 
1915, 17, 1917, 22, 1916; October 4, 1914, 10, 1917; 5 and 9, 1918; I 
saw five each time. Two or three years ago Mr. Kahmann, who knows 
birds well, told me of having seen a flock of Nighthawks on, I think he 
said, October 29. I did not believe it then, but I believe it now. 

Corvus b. brachyrhynchos. Crow.— It has often seemed to us that 
there is a crossing of migration routes on the south end of Lake Michigan. 
This can best be followed in the case of migrating Crows, because their 
fiocks are so conspicuous. In fall, many coming along the west shore of 
the lake seem to be turning southeastward, and those coming along the east 
shore, southwestward. In the spring this is, of course, reversed. 

Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus. YrELLOW-HEADED BLACKBIRD.— 
This northwesterly species still breeds here, even if in steadily diminishing 
numbers. Colonies are found in the swamp and lake region on either side 
of the Indiana-Illinois state line, in the southeastern part of Chicago, 
where in June, 1917, ten to twenty pair were found. I found several pairs 
in a swamp near Elk Grove, May 30, 1914, which was their last nesting 
there, because the following summer the swamp was drained and all vestige 
of its former bird fauna, which included Pied-billed Grebes, Coots, Black 
Terns, Blue-winged Teal, King Rails, Marsh Wrens, etc., disappeared. 
There is also a colony in Butler’s Lake, near Libertyville. Two or three 
years ago Stoddard told me about a few pairs in a small slough near 77th 
Street, Chicago, a site on which houses were built the next year. 

Molothrus ater ater. .Cowsrrp.— 

Sturnella magna argutula. MrapowLarK.—I have repeatedly 
found nests of the Meadowlark near my house, which is on the edge of the 
prairie, with one or more eggs of the Cowbird, and one or more or all eggs 
of the rightful owner apparently rolled out. An example of this was one 
found June 24, 1917, with two Cowbird eggs inside and four Meadowlark 
eggs outside. The Cowbird is a decided nuisance in the Dunes, where 
hundreds may be seen prowling around in nesting time. The Meadowlark 
of this section seems to be the small southern variety argutula, not the 
large-sized magna of the East, as Mr. H. K. Coale has pointed out. 

Icterus spurius. OrcHarD OrIoLe.—I have never seen this species 
here, but it occurs, with a curious, localized distribution. Mr. Edward 
R. Ford finds it in one or two places along the Drainage Canal, near Willow 
Springs, and where it flows out of Lake Michigan, at Evanston, but no- 
where else.! 

Icterus galbula. Battmore OrtoteE—In June, 1918, Mr. G. 
Friedrich, a member of the Chicago Ornithological Society, had under 


1The past summer I found the only pair in my ten years residence here. They 
were nesting at Cary on the Fox River. 


vial Errria, Birds of the Chicago Area. 521 


observation the building of a nest of this species. But, however hard and 
long he watched, he could never see the female. After the nest was 
finished and the complement of eggs laid, the nest was destroyed by an 
accident, and then he took one of the two birds in male plumage. Upon 
skinning and sexing it he found to his surprise that it was a female. Mr. 
Kahmann also saw the skinned bird, and he corroborates this. He tells 
me that he once before found the same thing. Mr. Friedrich kindly gave 
the skin to me. While the bird is not as brilliantly plumaged as some old 
males, it is more so than some young males I have seen, and is, at any rate, 
not in the plumage of the female at all. 

Hesperiphona v. vespertina. Eveninac GrospeakK.— We have 
found this species to be rather numerous, if only locally so, during the last 
three winters, in the Sand Dunes of northwestern Indiana: This has been 
reported by Stoddard (Auk, Vols. XX’XIII and XXXIV). In the phe- 
nomenally cold spring of 1917 several were seen in Jackson Park, Chicago, 
as late as May 15, and Mr. H. K. Coale saw some as late as the 21st, if 
Iremember correctly. They are keeping this up during the present winter. 
November 30, 1918, I saw about eighteen near Millers, the flock being made 
up of males and females. They were industriously gleaning the buds 
of oak trees, but the stomach contents of three, which I sent to the Bio- 
logical Survey at Washington, were reported as being almost. entirely 
made up of the seeds of some species of dogwood (Cornus).— December 21 
last, Mr. C. J. Hunt and I saw about fifty to sixty, one flock again indus- 
triously budding, another flying over. They have a remarkably swift 
and direct flight, something like some of the Limicolae, while the flocks are 
very compact. On the 27th we were there again, but we saw only four, 
having missed the main flock. They feed on the berries or seeds of fra- 
grant sumac (Rhus odorata), and poison sumac (R. toxicodendron) and 
probably others, besides the Cornus mentioned above. 

Pinicola enucleator leucura. Pine GrospeaK.— So far as I know 
this northern winter visitant has not been seen here for years past. It 
was therefore with some pleasure that ] saw two near Millers, November 
30, 1918, one of which was taken. 

Carpodacus p. purpureus. Purpie Fincu.— This species is strangely 
rare here, and as erratic in its coming and going as can be. I have seen it 
seven times only in nine years, as follows: January 6, 1917, one only in the 
tamarack swamp at Mineral Springs in the Dunes; February 7, 1912, one 
all alone in the large Addison woods; April 1, 1916, two near Millers; May 2 
and 3, 1916, a flock of ten in ‘‘ Waller’s Park,” near my home; October 6 
and 9, 1916, flocks of six at La Grange and Crete. 

Acanthis 1. linaria. Rrppoiu.— Besides the large numbers we have 
seen in the Dunes, reported by Mr. Stoddard, I have seen many here at 
River Forest in the fall and winter of 1916-17, from November 15 to March 
9. December 27, 1918, I again saw about twenty-five near Millers. 

Calcarius 1. lapponicus. LapLanp Loncspur.— After much search- 
ing for this species in various parts of our area, I find them rare in most. 


[oct 


B22. Errric, Birds of the Chicago Area. 
places in the proper season, but Addison, where J first made their acquaint- 
ance, continues to be the paradise for them that I called it in an article in 
‘The Auk,’ Vol. XXX, p. 238. To the bare, wind-swept fields around the 
old windmill they still come by the hundred or thousand every season. 
April 8, 1916, we found them there in great numbers, and on a day evi- 
dently to their liking. It was 33°, dark, and a strong northerly gale was 
blowing so hard as to make walking and seeing difficult. Yet in spite of 
that, or probably because of it, they seemed to be enjoying themselves, 
chasing each other and singing in a general frolic. Many males sere in 
nearly their full nuptial dress. Jn’specimens taken at this time of the year 
Mr. Stoddard and I have repeatedly found numbers of pinfeathers on head 
and neck, which would indicate that this acquisition of the nuptial coloring 
is not entirely due to abrasion, but wholly or in part to moulting. Jt has, 
after much observation of them, always seemed strange to me that the 
high colors of their nuptial plumage should by abrasion appear so suddenly 
and so symmetrically. These pinfeathers show that it is not due to 
abrasion only, if at all. 

Passerherbulus h. henslowi. Hrenstow’s Sparrow.— Given its 
weedy pastures, preferably with water near by, this queer Sparrow may 
be met with in all parts of this region. It is most common in the large 
swale at Mineral Springs, where the Marsh Hawk is found in numbers. 

Passerherbulus lecontei. LrcontTr’s Sparrow.— A rare migrant and 
still rarer breeder. Stoddard took one October 10, 1916, and Mr. E. R. 
Ford found a nest, as probably reported elsewhere. 

Passerherbulus n. nelsoni. NEr.Lson’s Sparrow.— Since the taking 
of two specimens at Addison, August 31, 1910, and September 16, 1911, 
previously reported, I have found no more. 

Spizella p. passerina. Cuippinc Sparrow.— Another _ species 
strangely rare here. As a breeder it is almost absent. The last two or 
three years, however, a pair or two bred near my house; last year a nest 
was in an Austrian pine on my lawn, five feet up, where the incubating 
female almost allowed one to touch her. 

Junco h. hyemalis. StatTe-cotorep Junco.— In the exceptionally 
cold spring of 1917 members of this species were seen unusually late. I 
saw several May 11, and Dr. A. Lewy, a member of the Chicago Orni- 
thological Society, as late as the 13th and 19th, in Jackson Park, whereas, 
ordinarily, the last are seen during the last week in April. 

Peucea estivalis bachmani. BacuMman’s Sparrow.— Since their 
appearance here in River Forest, May 9, 1915, when I saw them till July 1, 
I have seen no more. Dr. A. Lewy, however, saw one in Jackson Park, 
June, 1918. 

Spiza americana. DickcisseL.— This species seems to be yearly 
getting rarer or more erratic or both. Jn 1916 and 1917 I saw only two pair 
in each year, and these near my home, in clover fields. In the former year 
they came June 9, in the latter, June 19. Jn 1918 I saw none. 

Petrochelidon 1. lunifrons. Cuiirr Swattow.— This species seems 


--——— ow or + eee 


KI] Errric, Birds of the Chicago Area. 523 


to me to be becoming one of the rarest of birds., I have seen none for 
several years in the Chicago Area and next to none in various other locali- 
ties visited by me. I hope there is a corresponding increase in their num- 
bers elsewhere, but I am skeptical about it. The large, flourishing colony 
at Addison, twenty miles west of Chicago, consisting of about fifty pairs, 
has disappeared. 

Iridoprocne bicolor. TREE SwALLow. 

Stelgidopteryx serripennis. RouGH-wiNcED SwaLLtow.— June 10, 
1915, I saw a pair of each of these species nesting in a dead cotton- 
wood on the top of a dune at Millers. In each case the female looked out 
of the hole and the male perched as close by as he could. The Tree 
Swallow was formerly a common summer resident, but is now rare as such, 
only common in migration. The latter is uncommon here, but becomes 
abundant just a little south of us. Along the Kankakee River, I saw 
about thirty, April 28, 1917. 

Bombycilla cedrorum. Crpar Waxwina.— This species is decidedly 
on the increase in number in several parts of our region, notably in River 
Forest and the Dunes. The last two years many have been nesting in 
Waller’s Park, now called “ Northwoods,”’ here. 

Lanius ludovicianus migrans. Muicrant Sarike.— The number of 
birds of this species is deplorably declining here. When I first moved to 
River Forest there was a pair nesting near my house yearly, but in the 
last years I have seen none anywhere. In other regions I find the same 
condition. There is a pair nesting yearly at Mineral Springs in the Dunes, 
also at Addison, where it occupies the same hawthorn bush year after year. 

Protonotaria citrea. ProrHonoTary WarBLER.— This handsome 
species is extending its range northward along the Desplaines River. Sev- 
eral years ago it was found nesting at Riverside by Mr. M. O. Schantz, and 
since then it has been seen twice in River Forest, as on May 381, 1917. 
On the Kankakee, sixty miles south, it is abundant. 

Dendroica cerulescens cerulescens. BuacK-THROATED BLUE 
WarsieR.— In the spring of 1917 I did not see a single one of this 
otherwise so common migrant. Other Warblers, such as the Blackburnian, 
were almost equally rare. It was that extraordinarily cold spring, when we 
had frosts till about the middle of June. I have no doubt whatever that 
there must have been a great mortality that spring among Warblers, 
Swallows and other purely insectivorous species, as in that memorable 
spring of 1907, when conditions were similar over a large part of North 
America. 

Dendroica p. palmarum. Patm WarsieR.—In the same spring 
this species was seen hereabouts till May 31, when five were still in my 
garden. This Warbler seems to me to be increasing in numbers. 

Dendroica discolor. Pratrr WarBLER.— A very rare species here. 
To the one recorded by Mr. Stoddard lately, I can add another, namely, 
one seen by Dr. A. Lewy at Tremont, in the Dunes, July 19, 1916. 

Oporornis formosus. Kentucky Warsier.— Another exceedingly 


524 Errric, Birds of the Chicago Area. aus 


rare species here. We saw two May 27, 1917, in a tract of moist woods, 
near where the Desplaines River and Drainage Canal meet. 

Mimus p. polyglottos. Mockrnapirp.— Since the one we saw near 
my house May 18, 1916, I have seen no more, nor have | heard of others 
having seen them. 

Cistothorus stellaris. SHort-piLpep Marsh Wren.— What may 
almost be called a nesting colony of them is located at Mineral Springs, in 
the Dunes, in the same large swale where the Marsh Hawk and Henslow’s 
Sparrow are common. May 20, 1916, I saw about fifty there; their 
song resembles the syllables psit tsit tsit, ending in a sharp, rapid trill, 
which sounds like the knocking together of pebbles. The Prairie Marsh 
Wren (Telmatodytes palustris iliacus) is abundant in all larger sloughs and 
ponds. 

Sitta carolinensis carolinensis. Wuirr-BREASTED NUTHATCH.— 
This species seems deeidedly on the decrease in numbers. The last two or 
three years I have seen them two or three times only each year. 

Beolophus bicolor. Turrep Titmousre.— This Carolinian species 
is common enough 40-50 miles south of Chicago, but nearer the city it is 
rare. It seems to make short, rambling flights north of its breeding range 
in winter. I have seen it in River Forest, Riverside, Cary on the Fox 
River, and Millers, Indiana. 

Penthestes a. atricapillus. CxHicKaAprEE.— At Mineral Springs, 
Indiana, I have repeatedly seen this species, as well as Dryobates pubescens 
medianus, attacking the cattail stalks of the previous season, which proba- 
bly contained larve of some kind. 

Regulus c. calendula. Ruspy-crowNEeD Kincuet.— Jn the cold spring 
of 1917 this species stayed here in numbers until May 17, and their fine 
song could be heard daily. The Golden-crowned stayed about as late too. 

Sialia s. sialis. BLursrrp.— This most attractive member of our avi- 
fauna ] have found nowhere so abundant as, I am happy to say, near my 
home in River Forest. And this both as breeder or migrant. A nesting 
box in my garden has been occupied every year since put up, and one or 
two broods raised. In migration there are sometimes as many as twenty- 
five of them in my garden alone, which is only 100 by 100 feet, but con- 
tains two bird baths. Only at Cumberland, Maryland, have ] ever found 
them so abundant during migration as here. 


poe | Saunpers, Song of the Ruby-crowned Kinglet. 525 


GEOGRAPHICAL VARIATION IN THE SONG OF THE 
’ RUBY-CROWNED KINGLET. 


BY ARETAS A. SAUNDERS. 


VARIATION in bird song may be individual, local, seasonal, or 
geographical. Individual variation is by far the commonest form, 
and is well illustrated in the Song Sparrow (Melospiza melodia), a 
bird whose song seems to hold the same general characteristics 
everywhere throughout its range, and yet is so variable that no 
two individuals ever sing exactly alike. Local variation may be 
found in many species. I have heard greater differences in the 
songs of Field Sparrows (Spizella pusilla) in two Connecticut 
localities, not more than twenty milés apart, than there is between 
the average Connecticut bird, and those of Pennsylvania or Ala- 
bama. Seasonal variation is well illustrated in the Blue-winged 
Warbler (Vermivora pinus), the differences between the early and 
late songs of this species being well known. True geographical 
variation, however, seems to be much rarer than the other forms. 
Pycraft states that such variation “has often béen denied, but 
nevertheless . . . would seem to be true.” ! In my own experience 
there has come but a single certain case, that of the Ruby-crowned 
Kinglet (Regulus calendula). 

I have already published some facts concerning this variation 
(Auk, XXVIII, p. 48, and.Condor, XIV, p. 31), but wider studies 
since then have led me to believe the fact worthy of description 
in a more extended article. In general, there is a distinct, cer- 
tain, and constant difference between the songs of the Kinglets 
migrating through eastern United States, and undoubtedly breed- 
ing in eastern Canada, and those breeding in the northern Rocky 
Mountains. The complete geographical limits of each form of 
song I am unable at present to work out. I have observed the 
eastern song In Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, 
New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Alabama, and on the part of a few 


1A History of Birds, p. 166. 


Kees 


526 SAUNDERS, Song of the Ruby-crowned Kinglet. Oct. 


migrant individuals, in Montana. The western song I have ob- 
served entirely in Montana, but since it ranges over the whole 
western half of the state there, extending from the Yellowstone 
Park to the Glacier Park, and including both sides of the conti- 
nental divide, it probably covers a much greater range than this, 
perhaps the entire Rocky Mountain range of this species. Which 


Duratyjen in Seconds. 


Flathead Lake, Mont, June 27,1WS. R30A/7. 


Two Sones of THE Ru8Y- CROWNED KINGLET SHOWING 


GEOGRAPAICAL VARIATION, 


form the song of the Pacific coast subspecies resembles, if either, 
I have no means of knowing. 

I have illustrated the differences in the two forms of songs by 
samples I have collected, recorded by the graphic method (See Auk, 
XXXII, p. 173) with the hope that these illustrations will make 


rer 


Prise’. | SaunpeErs, Song of the Ruby-crowned Kinglet. DOU 


4 

this difference clearer than mere verbal description could. In 
general, the song of the Ruby-crowned Kinglet consists of three 
parts. The first part is a series of faint, high-pitched notes, rather 
squeaky in quality. The second part is much lower in pitch, 
sometimes more than an octave, and consists of a series of short, 
chatter-like notes. The pitch of these notes usually rises slightly. 
The third and final part of the song is the loudest and most con- 
spicuous, as shown by the heavy lines in the record. It is in this 
part that the variation occurs. astern birds sing it as a series of 
triplets, the notes of each triplet rising in pitch, and the last note 
accented, that is, both loudest and longest in duration. Western 
birds sing a series of double notes, all on the same pitch, the first 
note of each double being the accented one. Both eastern and 
western birds sometimes omit the first two parts of the song, and 
sing the third part only. When the western bird does this the 
song strongly suggests a common call of the Tufted Titmouse. 

Glancing at the illustrations of these two songs, the main differ- 
ences in them are at once apparent to the eye, as they are to the 
ear, of one who listens to the singers. A more detailed examination 
will show other differences in these two songs, but these are differ- 
ences that are merely individual. As they are not at once apparent 
to the eye in the illustration, so they are not noted by the ear in 
the field, unless one makes a careful detailed study of the song. 

While there is much variation among individual Kinglets in the 
rendering of their songs, I have never heard a song in eastern 
United States that resembled that of the western bird. In the 
same way I have never heard a bird on the breeding grounds in 
the west sing in a manner resembling the song of the eastern bird. 
In the spring of 1910 I did hear the eastern song from a number of 
birds that were migrating in Silver Bow County, Montana. These 
birds were all in clumps of willow bushes in the Transition zone, 
a place where this species may be found in numbers during the 


migrations. But in the fir forests of the Canadian zone, where 


this species breeds, the birds without exception sang the song of the 
western bird. This same statement will apply after seven summers 
of experience on the breeding grounds of this species in the moun- 
tains of Montana. 

To name a new subspecies on the basis of a difference in song 


O28 ALLEN, Evolution of Bird-song. (om 
would be a rather novel proceeding. The difference would be 
fully as great and as important as the differences on which many 
subspecies are named today, but they would be less tangible to the 
collector, who in most cases would have to depend on the locality 
to label his subspecies. I am rather of the opinion that the Rocky 
Mountain birds differ slightly from the eastern ones in plumage 
as well as in song. The naming of a new subspecies, however, 
if grounds for such, based on plumage or measurements, exist, I 
would prefer to leave to someone who has greater opportunities 
to study series of skins and to work out such problems. 


THE EVOLUTION OF BIRD-SONG! 
BY FRANCIS H. ALLEN. 


THE evidence and arguments brought forward by Mr. Chauncey 
J. Hawkins in his paper on ‘Sexual Selection and Bird Song’ in 
“The Auk’ for October, 1918, make it seem very probable that 
bird-song had its origin — its first cause —in the “maleness”’ of 
the males. Mr. Hawkins fails to show, however, how the multi- 
plicity of songs of the various species of birds, the extremely elabo- 
rate songs of some, could have acquired their present forms except 
by some continuous selective process. 

Mr. Hawkins concludes his paper by saying (following Brooks) 
that “any variations in voice which might arise would be pre- 
served in the male germ which assures the variation in the species, 
while the germ of the female guarantees the constancy of the 
species.” I suppose this to mean that all variations that have 
arisen in the course of the evolution of a species are present poten- 
tially in the male germ, but that some of them are inhibited by the 
conservative action of the female germ. This seems to be going a 
little beyond the evidence, and it can, I think, only be regarded as a 


1 Read, in somewhat different form, before the Nuttall Ornithological Club, May 5, 1919. 


Boe || ALLEN, Evolution of Bird-song. 029 
theory. Asa theory it seems to be open to the fatal objection that 
it fails to explain the relative uniformity of bird-song within the 
species. If every variation has a chance of being perpetuated, 
what is it, precisely, that decides for or against it and reaches the 
same or a similar decision in all individuals of the species? Can 
conservatism alone do this and thus permit progress in a definite 


direction? 


It seems to me that something more positive in the way of an 
evolutionary process is needed to account for the multifarious dis- 
tinctive songs of birds than the unregulated inhibition of variations. 
Granted that the song-impulse is rooted in the superabundant 
vitality of the male, there must still be some process that selects 
the variations to be preserved — whether it be sexual selection, 
natural selection, or some other agency, or a combination of two or 
more such agencies. 

As Mr. Aretas A. Saunders has pointed out (‘ Auk,’ January, 1919, 
p. 149), Mr. Hawkins has failed to make careful distinction between 


call-notes and song. Song probably originated in the rapid repeti- 


tion or special adaptation of call-notes, as Mr. Charles A. Witchell 
has shown in his interesting book on ‘The Evolution of Bird-Song’ 
(London, 1896), but it has assumed an entirely different function 
in the bird’s life, and, as Mr. Witchell and others have shown, it is 
as a rule transmitted from generation to generation in an entirely 
different way. Dr. Chapman, in his comprehensive discussion of 
“The Voice of Birds’ in the Introduction to his ‘Handbook of 
Birds of Eastern North America,’ indorses “the theory of the 
mimetic origin of bird-song,” and says, “ Birds inherit at least the 
calls they utter when in the nest, just as a child cries instinctively, 
but they apparently do not inherit their songs any more than the 
child inherits the language of its parents.”’ 

Call-notes are means of identification between individuals of a 
species and, being necessary in order to bring the sexes together 
and to prevent the separation of families, they have been evolved, 
whether through natural selection or otherwise, to meet the needs 
of the several species. No one thinks of attributing them to a 
surplus of sexuality. The songs are similarly differentiated for 
purposes of identification. Doubtless some, and perhaps many, 
songs were evolved either through the ordinary processes of evolu- 


990 ALLEN, Evolution of Bird-song. lees 


tion, whatever they may be, or through the special process of sexual 
selection. The evidence, however, seems to favor the belief that 
most songs are transmitted from generation to generation by imi- 
tation, each individual imitating, consciously or unconsciously, the 
songs of other individuals, whether the songs of his parents heard 
while he was in the nest or those of other birds. The songs would 
naturally be modified and improved by enterprising and gifted 
singers, but would, of course, always be subject to the conservative 
action of the herd instinet, which would repress and suppress any 
too great departure from the normal. (This last observation I offer 
as a substitute for Mr. Hawkins’s theory of the opposing influences 
of the male and female germs.) - In this way the characteristic songs 
of the species are preserved, just as primitive human language 
passes from individual to individual within the tribe, and as the 
folk-songs of the various races of men have been handed down from 
generation to generation. . 

This growth and development by invention and imitation must, 


it seems to me, account in great measure for the forms and general 


characters of bird-songs as we know them, but surely some other 
process was necessary to produce the beauties of tone and melody 
and rhythm that characterize so large a percentage of the songs. 
Superabundant vitality produces noise in human beings and doubt- 
less also in birds, but it cannot account for beauty, any more than 
it can account for the more or less intricate patterns of the vocal 
utterances that we call songs. Weismann remarks that “it is not 
easy to see why a more active metabolism should be necessary for 
the production of strikingly bright colours than for that of a dark 
or protective colour,” 1 and it would be fully as difficult, I think, 
to show how it could produce music out of noise. Equally impo- 
tent in this direction must be such an agency as natural selection, 
for obviously birds can pick up a living, escape their enemies, and 
propagate their kind without the help of music; many species do so. 


Imitation could not of itself produce musical qualities, and in the 


absence of any standards of taste it would be as likely to perpetuate 
harsh and unpleasing notes as beautiful ones. 
All these agencies failing, unless we postulate some supernatural 


1The Evolution Theory, English translation by J. Arthur Thomson and Margaret R. 
Thomson 1904, (original published in 1902), vol. i, p. 212. 


Mero. | ALLEN, Evolution of Bird-song. bal 


force at work in the universe to produce beauty,— and that, of 
course, would be getting outside the realm of science,— how can 
we escape imputing the origin and development of this beauty in 
bird-song to an zesthetic sense in the birds themselves? And how 
can we imagine an upward evolution in the beauty of the song 
and the proficiency of the singer without postulating some form 
of selection as the active principle? Finally, is any theory more 
reasonable than that of sexual selection to account for the beauty 
of bird-song? Is there, indeed, any other workable theory left 
to us? 

Mr. Hawkins has pretty thoroughly recapitulated the evidence 
in favor of the hormone theory of the origin of bird-song,' and I 
fail to find in his paper any argument that would apply against 
this view of the action of sexual selection in producing and develop- 
ing beauty in song, except the evidence he cites that display and 
ardent singing serve the purpose of overcoming the coyness of the 
female, and that in many cases there is no indisputable evidence 
that the female exercises any choice between suitors (or possible 
suitors). This is a strong argument but not an insuperable one. 
For one thing, even though but one male may be seen with the 
female at a given time, she may nevertheless have had opportuni- 
ties to choose,— just as in the human species it frequently happens 
that but one suitor is heard at a time! More observation is needed 
on this point. But many evolutionary questions must be decided 
by a nice balancing of evidence and arguments, and the difficulties 
of accounting for bird-song without admitting sexual selection as 
an important factor seem to be far greater than those of reconciling 
the latter with the theory of superabundant sexuality. 

If we agree that sexual selection has thus played its part, we have, 
then, in addition to natural selection or whatever other evolution- 
ary process may be the chief agency in the origin of species, these 
three codrdinate factors in the production of bird-song: the hor- 


“mones generated by the male sex glands originating the song- 


impulse; invention and imitation producing the variety and fixing 


1 He fails to mention a comparatively recent opinion on the other side of the question 
in the case of Weismann, who says in his ‘The Evolution Theory,’ “From [the] simple 
love-call the modern song of many species must have developed by means of sexual 
selection.” 


O32 ALLEN, Evolution of Bird-song. lass 


the form and character of the song; and sexual selection evolving, 
through both structural and psychological changes, beauty of tone 
and proficiency in execution. 

The letter of Mr. Saunders in the January ‘ Auk’ has suggested 
a further examination into the mode of development of the songs 
of birds. Mr. Saunders raises an interesting question in regard‘ to 
the relation between the ordinary songs of certain species and the 
ecstatic flight-songs. He makes a radical distinction between the 
“ordinary song” and the “mating-song,’”’ and states that “the 
ordinary song is evidently not sung from sexual impulses, but is 
simply an outburst of vocal sounds expressing great vigor and joy 
of living,” while “the mating-song, on the other hand, seems to be 
caused directly by sexual impulses,” and he goes on to say, “If we 
would know the primary cause of bird-song in general, then the 
question to be solved is which of these forms of song is the more 
ancient.’’ He decides this question in favor of the “ mating-song,” 
and cites as his only evidence a certain flight-song of the Eastern 
Meadowlark, which he says is almost identical with that of the 
Western species, while the ordinary songs of the two species are 
very different, indicating the ancestral character of this flight-song. 

He describes this song as “a*long-continued jumble of short, 
quick notes,” and says that it “quite closely resembles the flight- 
song of the Bobolink (Dolichonyx oryzivorus).”” This song is also 
mentioned by Dr. Chapman in his “* Handbook of Birds of Eastern 
North America” (Revised Edition, p. 64). I have never been 
fortunate enough to hear this song, which Dr. Chapman intimates 
is not very frequently uttered by our Eastern bird, and which I 
think, from my own experience and from inquiries I have made of 
other ornithologists, must be very uncommon in Massachusetts, 
where the “ordinary” song is certainly a mating-song, if not the 
mating-song. I should like, however, to cite a few other examples 
which seem to point to an opposite conclusion to that reached by 
Mr. Saunders as to the priority of mating-songs in general. 

One of the most conspicuous examples of ecstatic flight-songs 
among our Eastern birds is that of the Ovenbird (Seiurus aurocapil- 
lus), and this song always (in my experience) contains a fragment of 
the ordinary song of the species interpolated among its rich, melodi- 
ous warbles. Does it not appear more likely that this flight- 


oN ALLEN, Evolution of Bird-song. D005 
song has been evolved from the ordinary song, from which it has 
never quite succeeded in freeing itself, than that the warbling song 
should first have developed the teacher teacher teacher strain, and 
that then this new and comparatively uninteresting strain should 
have been selected to be lengthened and strengthened into the 
ordinary song of the species? 

Another common Warbler, the Black and White (Mniotilta varia), 
possesses a song which is confined, I think, to the nesting-season, 
and this is so like the ordinary song of the species that the two 
must certainly have had a common origin. The song we first hear 
from newly arrived birds in the spring is a plain wee-see wee-see 
wee-see wee-see; then later we hear what is obviously the same 
song elaborated by lengthening the performance and lowering the 
pitch of two of the dissyllabic notes near the end, thus: wee-see 
wee-see wee-see wee-see woo0-see woo-see wee-see wee-see. This lat- 
ter song is uttered from a perch and is not an ecstatic perform- 
ance like the Ovenbird’s, but it is clearly a mating-song as dis- 
tinguished from the ordinary song, and it is equally clearly an 
elaboration of that song. Of course, it may be argued that the 
more elaborate song is the regular one, and the other, which is 
heard first, is only a shortened, abortive form of it, used before 
the song-impulse has gained its full force; as, in the autumn, when 
the song-impulse is waning, we hear often only the introductory 
notes of the White-throated Sparrow’s song; but is it not probable 
that in both these cases the shortened form is merely a reversion 
to an ancestral song, the song as it was before it was evolved into 
its present complete form? The ordinary course of evolution is, 
of course, from the simple to the complex rather than from the 
complex to the simple. 

Again, the long-continued, richly intricate song that we hear 
from the Rose-breasted Grosbeak (Zamelodia ludoviciana) in the 
height of courtship excitement is obviously only an elaboration 
of its ordinary song. 

Is it not reasonable to assume that courtship excitement should 
lead to a more and more elaborate form of song-expression as the 
development of the species goes on, and that the song of the more 
excited moments should always be somewhat in advance of the 
ordinary song in point of fervor and elaboration? This view of 


534 ALLEN, Evolution of Bird-song. ees 


the development of bird-song might be stated as follows: Let S$ 
represent the song first developed out of the call-notes of a certain 
species. S becomes elaborated as SS under stress of unusual 
emotion, and SS becoming fixed in the psychology of the species, 
the bird has two songs, S and SS, the latter a special mating-song 
uttered only at times of great sexual excitement; then SS tends to 
become the ordinary song, and a further elaboration, SSS, is evolved 
to express the unusual emotion for which SS is no longer adequate. 

This process may go on indefinitely but so slowly that only in 
rare instances can we see any evidence of it. Do we not get a 
glimpse of it, however, in the case of the Baltimore Oriole (Icterus 
galbula)? Besides the harsh, chattering call which is suggestive of 
family relationships, this bird utters clear, pleasing whistles which 
are evidently in the nature of song-notes without amounting to 
actual songs. Out of these separate song-notes (S) has developed 
apparently the characteristic “ordinary song” of the Oriole (SS);! 
and out of this in turn has come the longer and more beautiful 
mating-song (SSS) which is so often uttered on the wing. (This 
is, of course, only an outline sketch of the possible development of 
these songs, and I do not mean to imply that there were no inter- 
mediate stages.) Here we seem to have three stages in song- 
development still in existence. It is conceivable that a fourth 
may be added in future ages and that the first or the second may 
eventually be dropped from the Oriole’s repertoire. 

Having elaborated this theory at some length, I have to confess 
that it remains only a theory, and I ought, perhaps, to apologize 
for presenting it in its present “half-baked” condition. If my 
presentation of it, however, leads to the presentation of further 
evidence or argument in favor of Mr. Saunders’s view, or if some 
one can show that “ordinary” songs and “mating” songs origi- 
nated quite independently of each other, I shall be satisfied. One 
objection that may be raised to the theory of progressive improve- 
ment from S to SS, etc., is, of course, the marked differences 


1] think I am justified in speaking of the Baltimore Oriole’s ‘ordinary song,”’ for though 
the song is subject to so much individual variation that hardly any two birds sing the 
same tune, yet its quality is highly characteristic; it is never to be mistaken for the song of 
any other species with which the Oriole is commonly found, and in that sense it is a very 
definite entity. 


Vol. gt ; 
1919 


ALLEN, Evolution of Bird-song. DBO 
between the ordinary and the mating songs, the absence of con- 
necting links. The Baltimore Oriole’s ordinary song is not merely 
a slight advance over the single song-notes; it is a much more 
elaborate performance. If the former originated in the latter, 
there must have been intermediate stages. What has become 
of these? Why have they been lost in the process of song-evolution 
while the single song-notes persist? Perhaps because they would 
represent simply an inferior form of song and would have no place 
in the Oriole’s life, while the separate notes can be uttered easily 
while the bird is feeding and can be used in a sort of conversational 
way when he is not moved to utter a set song. There may be 
similar reasons for the persistence in other cases of songs which 
retain a place in a bird’s repertoire, while other, more advanced 
songs have given place to still others, still more advanced. 

There is another consideration. Some of the special “mating- 
songs” are not merely more elaborate performances than the 
“ordinary songs” and thus clearly an advance upon them; they 
are ecstatic and confused, less orderly than the every-day songs, 
and are interspersed with call-notes and chattering. This is the 
case, sometimes at least, with the Baltimore Oriole. Such a song 
in its present condition could hardly be expected ever to become 
the regular song of the species. It would need to be modified and 
regulated — standardized, so to speak. I see no reason why this 
should not happen, but neither have I any proof that it does 
happen. This whole question of the relation of these two types 
of song to each other is a complicated one, and while I do not 
believe that Mr. Saunders has settled it, neither do I claim to have 
settled it myself. It may, indeed, prove that in this, as in some 
other matters, no one formula will apply universally, but that the 
nature and origins of the mating-songs are radically different in 
some species from what they are in others. 

I have quoted Mr. Saunders as saying that “the ordinary song 
lof birds possessing also a special mating-song] is evidently not 
sung from sexual impulses, but is simply an outburst of vocal sounds 
expressing great Vigor and joy of living.” It would be more exact 
to Say that the ordinary song is not sung from conscious sexual 
impulses — using the word “ conscious”’ in no strict sense, of course. 
Those who believe with Mr. Saunders that “sexual selection is the 


536 Penarp, The Genus Buthraupis. [ous 


, 
primary cause of the evolution of bird-song” must agree with Mr. 
Hawkins that the bird’s “joy of living” itself arises out of the 
sexual impulse, and those of us who consider the evolution of song 
more complex must still trace its origins back to sexuality. Even 
without accepting the Freudian theories in their entirety, we must 
recognize the power of the primary instincts, and there can be 
little doubt that it is the reproductive instinct that accounts for 
bird-song, however various were the processes through which it 
was evolved. 


REVISION OF THE GENUS BUTHRAUPIS CABANIS. 
BY THOMAS E. PENARD. 


THE generic name Buthraupis was proposed, without designation 


of type, by Cabanis (Mus. Hein., i, 1850, p. 29) for Tanagra mon- | 


tana d’Orbigny and Tanagra eximia Boissonneau, with Tanagra 
cucullata Jardine listed as synonym of B. eximia. Subsequent 
writers have used either 7. montana or T. cucullata as type of 
the genus. The first mention of a type, however, seems to have 
been by G. R. Gray (Cat. Gen. and Subgen. Birds, 1855, p. 73), 
who selected “ Tanagra montana Lafr.”” [= Tanagra montana 
@Orbigny, = Aglaia montana d’Orbigny and Lafresnaye], the 
first species listed by Cabanis under the new genus. 

As at present understood, Buthraupis is a composite group. 
Ridgway (U. S. N. M., Bull. 50, pt. ii, 1902, p. 32) has.called 
attention to the widely differing structural characters in its mem- 
bers, stating, however, that on the basis of the shape of the bill 
alone the genus could not be subdivided without making four 
groups, the first to include B. cucwlata and B. montana, the second 
B. arcet and B. ceruleigularis, the third B. chloronota, and the 
fourth B. eximia. He also called attention to the very much 
shorter tails in the group containing B. arce@i and B. ceruleigularis, 
but preferred to leave the genus with the usually assigned limits. 


‘ tit 


eX Prenarp, The Genus Buthraupis. 537 


Through the kindness of Mr. Outram Bangs, and at his sugges- 
tion, I have examined the members of this group in the Museum 
of Comparative Zoélogy, and Mr. W. deWitt Miller of the American 
Museum of Natural History, acting in Dr. Chapman’s absence, 
has kindly lent me specimens of B. arcei, B. melanochlamys, B. 
rothschildi, B. edwardsi, and B. aureocincta, so that altogether I 
have been able to see all the known forms usually included in the 
genus Buthraupis, with the exception of B. cyanonota, which is 
considered a subspecies of B. cucullata. 

The series shows much variation, but it is easy to distinguish 
two sections, one containing the larger, long-tailed members, 
represented by B. montana, B. cucullata, B. gigas, B. saturata, 
B. cyanonota (?), B. eximia, and B. chloronota, and the other con- 
taining the smaller, short-tailed members, represented by B. arcaz, 
B. ceruleigularis, B. melanochlamys, B. rothschildi, B. edwardsi, 
and B. aureocincta. The first section may be further subdivided 
into two groups, on the basis of decided differences in shape of 
bill and form of wing, the first group containing the longer-billed 
members with more pointed wings, the second group containing 
the shorter-billed members with less pointed wings. The second 
section containing-the smaller forms, although fairly uniform in 
structural proportions, shows some differences in details which 
may eventually prove to be of more than specific importance. 

Below are given the generic characters of the three groups which 
I think should be recognized: 


Buthraupis Cabanis. 


Type.— Tanagra montana d’Orbigny [= Aglaia montana d’Orbigny and 
Lafresnaye] by subsequent designation — G. R. Gray, 1855. 

Characters.— Bill short and heavy; length of maxilla from nostril less 
than one half the length of the tarsus, and a little more than one half the 
distance from angle of mouth to tip; depth equal to width at base or slightly 
greater, and equal to length of maxilla from nostril; culmen convex, some- 
times more strongly curved towards the tip, the terminal portion produced 
into a distinctly uncinate point, behind which there is a distinct tomial 
notch; gonys about equal to length of maxilla from nostril, not decidedly 
shorter, gently convex, ascending, contracted and ridged terminally; com- 
missure slightly sinuated; nostril exposed, nearly circular. Wing long, 


538 PenarD, The Genus Buthraupis. ‘an 


from four to four and one half times the length of the tarsus; rather pointed, 
second (from outside) to sixth primaries longer than the first, which is 
decidedly short but longer than the seventh; third (or fourth) primary 
longest; primaries exceeding secondaries by more than or about two thirds 
the length of the tarsus. Tail from two thirds to three fourths the length 
of the wing; slightly rounded, the rectrices broad with rounded tips. Tar- 
sus longer than the middle toe with claw; lateral claws reaching to or 
slightly beyond base of middle claw. 


The genus, as now restricted, includes the following species 
and subspecies: 


Buthraupis montana (d’Orbigny and Lafresnaye). 
Buthraupis cucullata cucullata (Jardine). 

Buthraupis cucullata gigas (Bonaparte). 

Buthraupis cucullata saturata Berlepsch and Stolzmann. 
Buthraupis cucullata eyanonota Berlepsch and Stolzmann. 


Cnemathraupis gen. nov. 


Type.— Tanagra eximia Boissonneau. 

Characters.— Bill similar to that of Buthraupis, but shorter; width at 
base less than depth and about equal to, length of maxilla from nostril; 
length of maxilla from nostril about equal to or less than one half the dis- 
tance from angle of mouth to tip; gonys strongly ascending and ridged 
terminally; nostril less exposed than in Buthraupis. Wing not so long as 
in Buthraupis, very little more than three and one half times the length 
of the tarsus; not so pointed, second (from outside) to seventh primaries 
longest, the first longer than the eighth (or ninth). Tail comparatively 
longer than in Buthraupis, from three fourths to four fifths the length of the 
wing. 


The following forms are included in this genus: 


Cnemathraupis eximia eximia (Boissonneau). 
Cnemathraupis eximia chloronota (Sclater). 


Remarks.— Ridgway (l. c.) has suggested that the ridged condi- 
tion of the gonys might be of generic importance. This character, 
however, is found to be rather variable, being more pronounced 
in some specimens of C. e. chloronota than in others. A specimen 
of C. e. chloronota in the Museum of Comparative Zoélogy (M. C. Z. 


cao | Penarp, The Genus Buthraupis. 539 


124900) certainly has this ridge fully as much developed as in a 
specimen of C. e. eximia (Bangs coll. 1448), although in general 
the ridge is more distinct in C. e. eximia. Some specimens of B. c. 
cucullata also exhibit this character strongly. The two forms, 
C. e. eximia and C. e. chloronota, very probably intergrade, and are 
considered geographical races by Chapman (Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. 
Hist., xxxvi, 1917, p. 603). 


Bangsia gen. nov. 


Type.— Buthraupis arcei ceruleigularis Cherrie. 

Characters.— In general resembling Buthraupis, but differing consider- 
ably in shape of bill and form of wing. Bill rather long and comparatively 
slender; depth at base about equal to width and to gonys (in this respect 
resembling Buthrawpis), but decidedly less than length of maxilla from 
nostril. Wing long, about four times the length of the tarsus; more 
pointed than in Buthraupis, third primary (from outside) longest, the first 
very little shorter than the third and longer than the fifth (or sixth?); 
primaries exceeding secondaries by about the length of the tarsus. Tail 
comparatively much shorter than in Buthraupis, about one half or a little 
more than one half the length of the wing; slightly rounded or nearly 


square (slightly forked in B. a. ceruleigularis), not so decidedly rounded 
as in Buthraupis. 


The following species and subspecies should be referred to this 
genus: 


Bangsia arcei arcei (Sclater and Salvin). 
Bangsia arcwi ceruleig ularis (Cherrie). 
Bangsia melanochlamys (Hellmayr). 
Bangsia rothschildi (Berlepsch). 
Bangsia edwardsi (Elliot). 

Bangsia aureocincta (Hellmayr). 


Remarks.— It gives me great pleasure to dedicate this well- 
marked genus to Mr. Outram Bangs. 

I have seen only one specimen each of B. melanochlamys, B. 
rothschildi, and B. edwardsi, and two of B. aureocincta. In all 
these the bill seems to be a little heavier than in B. a. arcei and B. a. 
ceruleigularis, especially the latter, and the fifth primary is longer 


540 Cory, Three new South American Birds. ie 


than the first. The distance from the secondaries to the tip of the 
longest primary also appears to be comparatively much shorter 
than the length of the tarsus, but the condition of some of the 
specimens was such that reliable conclusions could not be drawn, 
and more material would have to be examined to determine the 
exact interrelationship of these forms. 

In selecting as type B. a. ceruleigularis rather than the earlier 
form, B. a. arcwi, I have been influenced by the condition of the 
material at hand. The only specimen of an otherwise fine speci- 
men of B. arcei before me has a slightly imperfect tail, which, 
however, appears to be rounded instead of forked. 


DESCRIPTIONS OF THREE NEW SOUTH AMERICAN 
BIRDS. 


BY CHARLES B. CORY. 


Automolus leucophthalmus bangsi subsp. nov. 


Type from Sao Amaro, a few miles from the city of Bahia, eastern Bahia, 
Brazil. Adult female, No. 50573, Field Museum of Natural History. 
Collected by R. H. Becker, October 9, 1913. 

Description.— Similar to the type of Automolus leucophthalmus leuco- 
phthalmus (Wied) (type examined) from the interior of southern Bahia, but 
differs in having the upper parts more brownish rufous, rump and tail 
decidedly darker (more rusty chestnut and less rufous), and sides of body 
and flanks more tinged with olivaceous. 

Measurements. — Wing, 89; tail, 85; bill, 20 mm. 


Remarks.— Six specimens examined from the coast region of 


Bahia. 
Xiphocolaptes bahiz sp. nov. 
Type from Macaco Secco, near Andarahy, central Bahia, Brazil. Adult 


male, No. 50698, Field Museum of Natural History. Collected by R. H. 
Becker, October 20, 1913. 


ia | Cory, Three new South American Birds. 541 

Description — Adult male, ground color of crown dark brown, the 
feathers with shaft stripes of pale tawny rufous; back olive brownish, the 
feathers with fine shaft streaks of buffy white; wing coverts and exposed 
portion of primaries and secondaries (outer edges only with closed wing) 
olive brownish like the back; throat plain buffy white; lores, suborbital 
region; and ear coverts buffy; breast olive brownish, the feathers with 
broad, longitudinal buffy white stripes which are not bordered with dusky; 
abdomen and under tail coverts pale olive brown, the middle abdomen 
spotted as in promeropirhynchus, but dark spots paler and confined to the 
middle abdomen; bill entirely black. 

Measurements.— Wing, 132; tail, 110; tarsus, 27; bill, 45 mm. 


Re Allied to X. p. promeropirhynchus (Lesson), but 
coloration of crown, back, and under parts quite different. 


Dendrocolaptes picumnus cearensis subsp. nov. 


Type from Jua, near Iguatu, Ceara, Brazil. Adult male, No. 50727, 
Field Museum of Natural History. Collected by R. H. Becker, August 25, 
1913. 

Description.— Similar to D. p. intermedius Berlepsch from Bahia and 
central Brazil, but differs in having the general plumage more tinged with 
tawny, and the upper parts and under parts more tawny olive; upper tail 
coverts brighter rufous; stripes on crown and breast more tawny (less 
whitish). 

Measurements.— Wing, 125; tail, 120; bill, 35 mm. 


5042 Dwicut, Larus fuscus and Larus affinis. (Gen 


THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE GULLS KNOWN AS LARUS 
FUSCUS AND LARUS AFFINIS. 


BY JONATHAN DWIGHT, M. D. 
Plates XX and XXI. 


“In approaching many of the problems in modern systemic 
ornithology, one is confronted with the necessity of steering a 
middle course between the Scylla of imperfect knowledge on the 
one hand and the Charybdis of nomenclature on the other. Either 
may bring us to shipwreck; but mindful of those who have pre- 
ceded me in writing about the Lesser Black-backed Gull (Larus 
fuscus), and the Siberian Gull (Larus affinis), I venture with some 
hesitancy to take up the tangled question of the relationship of 
these birds and make another endeavor to fix the proper names 
upon them. 

Larus fuscus, an abundant European species, was described in 
1758 by Linneeus, and has never been taken on the American side 
of the Atlantic. L. affinis, however, has stood as a North American 
species in the A. O. U. ‘Check-Lists’ on the strength of a single 
specimen, the type taken in southern Greenland and described 
by Reinhardt in 1853 (Videnskab-Meddel., p. 78). 

Until 1912 these two gulls were recognized as two full species, 
and then Lowe (Brit. Birds, VI, no. 1, June 1, 1912, pp. 2-7, pl. 1) 
started the ball rolling by restricting the name fuscus to Scandi- 
navian birds and describing the paler bird of the British Isles 
subspecifically as brittanicus. A few months later Iredale (Brit. 
Birds, VI, no. 12, May 1, 1913, pp. 360-364, with pl.), borrowing the 
type of affinis from the Copenhagen Museum, where it had rested 
for half a century, and comparing it with British specimens, found 
it to be identical with them; but not content with synonymyzing 
brittanicus with affinis, he reached the conclusion that the Siberian 
bird was larger and therefore required a new name — antelius. 
In 1915 Buturlin (Mess. Orn. VI, no. 12, 1915, p. 149) scored 
Iredale for not providing either type or type locality for antelius, 
and went on to say that he himself had given the name Larus 


NIGdV SQOOSNA SOUWT 


“‘IAXXX “TOA “ANY FHL 


Woe Ba ABI 


oc. | Dwieut, Larus fuscus and Larus affinis. , 048 
affinis taimyrensis in 1911 (Mess. Orn., 2d year, no. 2, 1911, p. 
149) to the Eastern race, and therefore the Western race must be 
known as Larus affinis antelius. Buturlin says, (translated from 
the Russian) “As the name ‘affinis’ now is proved to belong to 
another species (no intergradation is known or is likely to exist 
between the Lesser Black-backed and Siberian Herring Gulls), the 
Eastern race of the Siberian Herring Gull must bear the name 
Larus taimyrensis taimyrensis, Buturl., 1911, and the Western race 
Larus taimyrensis antelius, Iredale, 1913.” 

It is at this point I purpose taking up the question which re- 
solves itself into two parts, one, ornithological, concerning the 
relationship of the gulls under discussion, the other, nomenclatural, 
concerning the names to be used. At least I may contribute 
information that I have acquired from the examination of con- 
siderable material available in this country. Briefly then I may 
state that the specimens I have brought together confirm Mr. 
Lowe’s claim that there are two intergrading forms of the Lesser 
Black-backed Gull, one with a brownish black back or mantle 
that breeds in Scandinavia and probably southward and another 
with a paler, slaty mantle that breeds in northern England, Scot- 
land, the adjacent islands, and on the northern coast of Russia. 
But as for names, there is an extensive literature bearing upon 
this Gull and it is perhaps worth while to outline the history of 
some of the names that have been used. 

Linneus (Syst. Nat. ed. 10, 1758, I, p. 136) first described Larus 
fuscus as “L. albus dorso fusco” (2. e., white gull with swarthy 
back), and in his ed. 12, 1766, p. 225, added “ Rostrum Pedesque 
flavi” (2. e., bill and feet yellow). This name prevailed until 
Meyer and Wolf (Naturg. Vég. Deutschl., II, 1805, p. 32, col’d 
pl.) substituted Larus flavipes, but their description, “back and 
upper side of wings brownish black,” is evidently that of fuscus, 
and their plate is that of a bird with the back almost black. Meyer 
and Wolf (Taschenb. Deutsch. Végelkunde, II, 1810, pp. 469-471, 
col’d frontisp.) again made use of Larus flavipes, repeating virtu- 
ally the old description, and the plate, now smaller, is clearly that 
of a black-backed bird. Curiously enough, at p. 471 they say in 
conclusion, “The name which Linnzus applies to this Gull (if it is 
other than his Larus fuscus) does not fit very well, for the back 


544 Dwieut, Larus fuscus and Larus affinis. ees: 


and wing coverts are not fuscus (aschengraubraun) |i. e., ashy gray 
brown] but brownish black (braunlichschwarz).”’ The question 
may well be asked what did Linneus mean by fuscus and what 
value should be attached to the remark of Meyer and Wolf? While 
Linnzeus, perhaps, has used fuscus rather loosely in his descriptions, 
he surely would not have applied it to the light slaty backed form; 
and Meyer and Wolf evidently did not have the courage of their 
convictions, for they described and figured fuscus. Meisner and 
Schinz (V6g. Schweiz, 1815, p. 276) make use of Larus flavipes 
and so does Meyer (Kurze Beschs. Vég. Liv. u Esthl. 1815, p. 231), 
Vieillot (Encye. Méthod. I, 1823, p. 346; Faune france. Ois., 1828?, 
p. 394), Lesson (Traité, 1831, p. 617), and Temminck (Man. Orn. 
2d ed., 4th pte., 1840, p. 471), but all of these writers seem to refer 
without question to fuscus. As for Larus cinereus (Leach, Syst. 
Cat. Mam., etc., 1816, p. 40), it would be a difficult matter 
to allocate this name. As early as 1822 Brehm and Schilling 
(Beitr. zur Vogelkunde, III, pp. 735 +) gave elaborate descrip- 
tions of the plumages of the Gulls, but apparently confused the 
black-backed species under “ maximus’? and “marinus.” Later 
Brehm (Isis, XXIII, 1830, p. 993, and Handl. Naturg. Végel. 
Deutschl., pp. 746-750) recognized three species of the “ Laroide 
harengorum (Larus fuscus),” viz., melanotos, harengorum, and 
fuscus, saying that they all have a very dark mantle, and using the 
term slate-back (“schieferschwarz’’) to describe it, so here again 
it is evident that these names are pure synonyms of fuscus. 

Next in point of time is Macgillivray (Man. Brit. Orn., 1842, 
pt. II, p. 245), who, in describing “ Larus flavipes, Yellow-footed 
Gull,” says in part, “the back and wings blackish-gray tinged with 
purple or dark slate coloured.”” This description of the British 
bird applies to the form that Lowe called brittanicus, which has 
proved to be Reinhardt’s affinis, and it would be most appropriate 
to use “ Yellow-footed Gull” for the popular name. 

Summing up, then, the first available scientific name for the 
grayer-backed bird is affinis of Reinhardt, and as there is complete 
intergradation of every character between affinis and fuscus there 
can be no question of two species. 

The skins I have examined show a little difference in the size of 
birds of the two races, although the difference in color of the mantles 


THE AUK, VOL. XXXVI. 


Larus 


FUSCUS 


FUSCUS. 


PLATE XX 


#Y 


Vol. eae | 
1919 


Dwicut, Larus fuscus and Larus affinis. 545 
is usually diagnostic. I would also call attention to another 
neglected character quite as good as any only less obvious, and 
that is the wing pattern. 

In the adults of fuscus, three or four of the distal primaries are 
black, the fifth usually being the first to show a pattern which is 
in the nature of a gray wedge (Plate XXI), while in affinis the 
gray wedges begin on the first or second primary (Plate XX). 
As a rule the wedges in fuscus are rather obscure and in color 
much like the mantle, while in affinis the wedges and the color 
are both clearly defined; that is to say, the dark bird has a dark 
pattern, the lighter bird a lighter one. Saunders (Brit. Mus. Cat. 
XXV, 1896, p. 253) noticed these differences and yet he did not 
rightly appraise them, and being a binomialist he allowed “ affinis”’ 
to stand as a full species, although he was fully alert to the facts 
and saw the close relationship. My material from Russia is 
limited to one specimen, so I do not feel competent to pass judg- 
ment on “taimyrensis”’ of Buturlin, which may perhaps be worth 
recognizing as a large geographical race. One needs to be very 
sure Gulls are sexed correctly if they are to be separated on size 
alone, for while females are regularly smaller in dimensions than 
males, particularly noticeable in the bills, there is always an over- 
lapping of large females and small males. Buturlin’s position 
that fuscus is a separate species is not well taken, although it is 
rather a curious distribution by which the dark mantled form of 
Scandinavia thrusts itself between the gray mantled form breeding 
to the west of it and to the east as well. The specimens I have 
examined measure as follows: 


Larus fuscus fuscus Linnaeus. 


10 adult males, wing 415-438 (423), tail 152-169 (160) 
tarsus 58-66 (63.6), toe without claw, 45-52 (49.1), culmen, 49- 
55 (52), depth of bill at base, 15-18 (16), at angle, 16-19 (16.5). 

5 adult females, wing 394-410 (400.8), tail 142-159 (149.8), 
tarsus 57-60 (58.8), toe without claw, 42-47 (45), culmen, 45-48 
(46.2), depth of bill at base, 14-16 (14.9), at angle, 15-17 (15.7). 


546 RicHMOND, “Oiseaux d’ Afrique.” hes 


Larus fuscus affinis Reinhardt. 


10 adult males, wing 394-428 (412.3), tail 152-167 (160.3), 
tarsus 63-69 (65.9), toe without claw, 47-53 (50.3), culmen, 49-56 
(52.9), depth of bill at base, 16-19 (17.3), at angle, 16-19 (17.8); 

4 adult females, wing 382-407 (892.2), tail 151-158 (155.7), 
tarsus 57-66 (61), toe without claw, 42-51 (45.5), culmen, 44-50 
(47.5), depth of bill at base, 14-15 (14.7), at angle, 15-16 (15.7). 


FORSTER’S EDITION OF LEVAILLANT’S “OISEAUX 
D’ AFRIQUE.” 


BY CHARLES W. RICHMOND. 


PuBLicaTIoNn of Levaillant’s celebrated ‘Histoire Naturelle des 
Oiseaux d’Afrique’ was begun in Paris in 1796, and completed 
in six volumes in 1808. It was issued in folio, with two sets of 
plates, black and colored, also in 4°, with colored plates, and in 4°, 
with plain plates; there was also an edition in 12mo of two volumes. 

In 1797 Bechstein began at Niirnberg a translation under the 
title ‘Franz Le Vaillant’s Naturgeschichte der Afrikanischen 
Vogel,’ but it was discontinued at the end of the “ Erster Band” 
in 1802. It consisted of 8 parts, each with 6 plates and corre- 
sponding text; in all 48 plates, with pages i-xii, 13-210, 4°. It is 
uncommon, though met with occasionally in the second-hand book 
catalogues. Additional matter by Bechstein is given in footnotes, 
but this is of little interest concerning nomenclature, since the 
translator did not give any new scientific names to the species, 
except possibly that of Falco lagopus Varietas africana, described 
on p. 96 (note). 

A very little known translation was begun in Halle in 1798 by 
a publisher named Dreyssig, who secured the cooperation of J. R. 


Meal Ricumonp, ‘Oiseaux eAtiquee 547 
Forster, already the translator into German of one of Levaillant’s 
voyages to Africa. The Halle edition is very rare, and for nearly 
a century has remained almost unnoticed by ornithologists, though 
one or more of the new names given by Forster were cited in one 
of F. Boie’s papers in Oken’s Isis about 1820-26. It was omitted 
in Engelmann’s Bibliotheca Hist. Nat. of 1846, but is mentioned, 
apparently at second hand, in the continuation by Carus and 
Engelmann, where the date is given as 1798. Suckow, in 1800, 
also quotes it as 1798, but his reference to it suggests that the work 
was autoptically unknown to him, since he mentions none of the 
new names introduced by Forster. Sherborn was unable to find 
a copy when compiling his ‘Index Animalium,’ though it is duly 
listed among his “libri desiderati.”” Thus the case remained 
until 1905, when the writer had the good fortune to obtain a copy 
from a dealer in Leipzig. This copy has an engraved title page, 
in script style, running as follows: F. le Vaillant’s | Naturgeschichte 
| der | Africanischen Végel | mit Anmerkungen | von | D. Johann 
Reinhold Forster. | No. 3 [illustration of the “Undatus”’] | Halle | 
bei Fried. Christoph Dreyssig. | The size is small octavo. There 
is no printed title page in this copy, and the plates are uncolored. 
Following the title is a “ Nachricht an die Kaufer’’ (pp. ii-vi), 
signed by Dreyssig, and a “‘ Vorrede”’ (pp. vii-xiv), with a “ Nach- 
schrift” (p. xv), the latter signed by Forster. On the back of 
page xv is an “Inhalt,” giving a list of the 18 plates, with a refer- 
ence to the pages on which the subjects are treated. The plates 
are listed in three groups: Nos. 1-8 are “ Raubvégel,” the species 
of which are introduced without generic names; Nos. 9-14 are 
“Geyer,” for which the generic name Vultur is used; Nos. 15-18 
are “Von den Bussarten,” or species of “Falco.” Pages 1-64 
constitute the remainder of the text, with the plates inserted at 
their proper places. There is no plate 3, as this subject is shown 
on the engraved title page. 

Recently the writer secured a second copy! through the kind 
offices of Dr. T. S. Palmer (who obtained it from a Philadelphia 
book shop), which, upon comparison with the first, proved to 
be a colored edition (the illustration on the engraved title being 


1 Both copies are now in the library of the U. 8. National Museum. 


O48 Ricumonp, ‘“‘Oiseaux d’ Afrique.” ies 


also colored), having a printed title page in addition to the en- 
graved one. This reads: F. le Vaillant’s | Naturgeschichte | der | 
afrikanischen Végel | mit Anmerkungen | von | D. Johann Rein- 
hold Forster. |— | Erstes Bindschen mit 18 Kupfern | Halle, | 
bey Friedrich Christoph Dreyssig.|On the back of the printed 
title is given a list of 35 book dealers, in as many places, chiefly, 
though not all, in Germany, from whom the book could be obtained, 
ending with the statement that it could be procured from any 
book dealer in Germany. The publisher intended to issue a part 
every few months, but the death of Forster, on December 9, 1798, 
probably caused the project to be abandoned, since no further 
installments were published. In addition to the two styles de- 
scribed above, the publisher referred to a third, more fully colored 
edition, that could be supplied at a somewhat higher price. 

A list of the species figured and described, with the names given 
by Forster and Levaillant, and the pages on which they occur, is 
added, together with the equivalent names of Daudin and earlier 
writers. 


‘““Raubvogel.” 


Pl. 1. Harpacter. Griffard. p. 1. Falco bellicosus Daudin, 1800. 
2. Hulophos. WHuppard. 7. F. occipitalis Daudin, 1800. 
3. Undatus. Blanchard. 10. F. coronatus Linneus, 1766. 
4. Vociferator. Vocifer. 14. F. vocifer Daudin, 1800. 
5. Ichthyotheres. Blagre. 18. F. leucogaster Gmelin, 1788. 
6. Cafer. Caffre. 23. F. vulturinus Daudin, 1800. 
7,8. Platages. Bateleur. 25. F. ecaudatus Daudin, 1800. 


“Geyer.” 
Pl. 9. Vultur Tracheliotos. Oricou. p. 29. Vultur tracheliotus  Forster,. 


1791. 
10. V.Coprotheres. Chasse- 35. V. kolbit Daudin, 1800. 
fiente. 
11. Vultur indus... Chaugoun. 40. V. bengalensis Gmelin, 1788. 
12. Vultur sinensis. Chincou. 42. V. monachus Linneus, 1766. 
13. Vultur Papa L. Roi des 48. V. papa Linneus, 1758. 
Vautours. 


14. Vultur Hierax. Ourigourap. 50. V. percnopterus Linnzus,1758. 


1 Vultur indus Forster, 1795 (Faunula Indica, p. 5), is an emendation of Vullur indicus 
Scopoli, 1786, and refers to another species. 
2 Also Vullur auriculatus Daudin, 1800. 


ase 


Vol. | 


1919 OBERHOLSER, Races of Quiscalus Quiscula. 549 


“Von den Bussarten.”’ 


Pl. 15. Falco Bassus. Bacha. p. 55. Falco bacha Daudin, 1800. 
16. F. Rufofuscus. Rounoir. 59. Buteo jakal Daudin, 1800. 
17. F. Rufocanus. Rougre. 62. Falco desertorum Daudin, 
1800. * 


18. Falco ocreatus. Buse gantée. 63. F. lagopus Gmelin, 1788. 


The specific names given to nos. 10, 15, 16, and 17 appear to be 
the earliest for their respective species, and should be adopted. 


NOTES ON THE RACES OF QUISCALUS QUISCALUS 
(LINNZUS). 


BY HARRY C. OBERHOLSER. 


ACCORDING to the views of current authors there are three sub- 
species of our common Grackle, Quiscalus quiscula (Linneus). 
Since, as Mr. A. T. Wayne has recently shown,! the Gracula quiscula 
of Linneus? is properly applicable to the Florida Grackle (Quis- 
calus quiscula agleus), and the Purple Grackle needs another name, 
it may be worth while to present a few notes on all the forms of the 
species, with a revised statement of the geographic distribution 
of each. 


Quiscalus quiscula quiscula (Linnus). 


[Gracula] quiscula Linnaus, Syst. Nat., ed. 10, I, 1758, p. 109 (based 
on Monedula purpurea Catesby, Nat. Hist. Carolina, Florida, and Bahama 
Islands, I, 1731, p. 12, pl. XII; and Merops niger, viridi-argentea Brown, 
Nat. Hist. Jamaica, 1756, p. 476) (‘‘Habitat in America septentrionali’’). 

[Oriolus] ludovicianus GMELIN, Syst. Nat., I, i, 1788, p. 387 (based on 
Cassique de la Louisiane, Buffon, Hist. Nat. des Ois. [original edition], III, 
p. 242; Planch. Enlum., No. 646) (partial albino) (Louisiana). 


1 The Auk, XX XV, No. 4, October, 1918, p. 440. 
2Syst. Nat., ed. 10, I, 1758, p. 109. 


550 OBERHOLSER, Races of Quiscalus quiscula. on 


Siurnus quiscala Daupry, Traité Elém. et Compl. d’Ornith., II, 1800, 
p. 316 (= Gracwa quiscula Linnzus). 

Gracula quiscala Witson, Amer. Ornith., III, 1811, p. 44, pl. XXI, fig. 
4 (= Gracula quiscula Linnzus). : 

Quiscalus versicolor VreEILLoT, Nouv. Dict. d’ Hist. Nat., XXVIII, 1819, 
p. 488 (Greater Antilles to Hudson Bay) (nom. nov. pro Gracula quiscala 
Latham, Ind. Ornith., I, 1790, p. 191, que Gracula quiscula Linnzus). 

Quliscala]. nitens LicHTENSTEIN, Verz. Doubl., 1823, p. 18 (nom. nov. 
pro Gracula quiscwa Linnzus et Sturnus quiscala Daudin). 

Qufiscalus]. purpureus STEPHENS, in Shaw, Gen. Zool., XIV, pt. 1, 1826, 
p. 48 (based on Gracula ‘‘quiscala” [= quiscwla] Shaw, Gen. Zool., VII, 
1809, p. 458 [= Gracula quiscula Linnzus]; and on Wilson, Amer. Ornith., 
ITI, p. 44, pl. NXT, fig. 4) (“‘South’’ [= North] America). 

Quiscalus purpuratus Swatnson, Anim. in Menag., 1838, p. 298 (Nerth 
America). ; 

Quiscalus agleus Barrp, Amer. Journ. Sci. and Arts, ser. 2, XLI, 1866, 
p. 84 (based on Quiscalus baritus Baird, Rep. Explor. and Surv. R. R. Pae., - 
IX, 1858, p. 556; Cape Florida, Florida). 

Q[udscalus]. versicolor typicus Ripeway, Bull. U. S. Nat. Mus., No. 50, 
pt. I], 1902, p. 217 (Seclater MS.) (in synonymy). 

Cuars. Supsp.— Size small; back, scapulars, and lower parts nearly 
uniform dull olive or bottle green. 

Tyre Locatrry.— Coast of South Carolina? 

GrocrapHic DistrrscuTion.— Resident in the southern part of the 
southeastern United States. Breeds north to the coast of South Carolina, 
southern Georgia, southern Alabama, and southern Mississippi; west to 
eastern Louisiana; south to the coast of the Gulf of Mexico, from eastern 
Louisiana to southern Florida; and east to the Atlantic coast of Florida, 
Georgia, and South Carolina. 


Remarks.— The individual variation in this race is not nearly 
so great as in the form of the species breeding in the Middle Atlantie 
States. Its usual coloration is much like the dark green-backed 
phase of the latter. It has, however, what might be considered 
two phases of plumage, in one of which the head is bluish, espe- 
cially anteriorly, in the other purplish; the head is apparently 
very rarely, if ever, green. In some specimens the median posterior 
lower parts show some blue or purplish; and the upper parts are 
occasionally more or less obscurely barred with the same, particu- 
larly on the posterior portion. These variations are, of course, 


: For measurements of this race, c7. Ridgway, Bull. U. S. Nat. Mus., No. 50, pt. IT, 1902, 
pp. 217-218. 
2? Designated by Wayne, The Auk, NXNYV, No. 4, October, 1918, p. 440. 


Vol. ore 


1919 OBERHOLSER, Faces of Quiscalus quiscula. noe 


in the direction of the common Purple Grackle, but are never so 
pronounced as in that form. 

From the data given by Mr. Wayne,! there seems to be no doubt 
of the correctness of his conclusions regarding the proper applica- 
tion of the name Gracula quiscula Linneus to the bird commonly 
called Quiscalus quiscula agleus Baird. As Mr. Wayne has shown, 
the Gracula quiscula of Linnzus? was based chiefly on Catesby’s 
Monedula purpurea, “the Purple Jack Daw.” * In determining 
to which of the subspecies this description of Catesby’s applies, 
we can get no assistance whatever from Catesby’s figure, and we 
are obliged, therefore, to determine its application by the text. 
This, again, is not very satisfactory, but in view of the fact, brought 
out by Mr. Wayne, that the Purple Grackle is almost unknown 
in the coast region of South Carolina where Catesby’s work was 
done, and where, as his text indicates, he observed the birds from 
which his figure was drawn, it would seem improper to fix the 
name on any other than the breeding bird of this region. This 
involves, of course, the relegation of Quiscalus agleus Baird to 
synonymy, since the latter name thus applies to the same bird as 
Gracula quiscula Linneus. The Merops niger, viridi-argentea of 
Brown,* which Linneeus cites in his synonymy, and which is, of 
course, Holoquiscalus jamaicensis (Daudin), may properly be 
ignored in this connection, since it clearly does not figure in either 
Linneus’ diagnosis or his comments. 

The Gracula quiscala of Wilson® is merely a misspelling of 
Gracula quiscula Linneeus, as is shown by the synonymy quoted; 
and the same applies to Sturnus quiscala Daudin.’ The Quiscalus 
versicolor of Vieillot’ is merely a new name for Gracula quiscala 
Latham (= Gracula quiscula Linneus), as the synonymy and 
range (Greater Antilles to Hudson Bay) clearly indicate. Lichten- 
stein’s Quiscala nitens ® is merely a new name for Gracula quiscula 
Linneus and Sturnus quiscala Daudin, and is, of course, of identical 

1 Loc. cit. 

2Syst. Nat., ed. 10, I, 1758, p. 109. 

3 Nat. Hist. Carolina, Florida, and Bahama Islands, I, 1731, p. 12, pl. xii. 
4 Nat. Hist. Jamaica, 1756, p. 476. 

5 Amer. Ornith., III, 1811, p. 44, pl. X XI, fig. 4. 

6 Traité Elém. et Compl. d’Ornith., II, 1800, p. 316. 


7 Nouv. Dict. d’Hist. Nat., XX VIII, 1819, p. 488. 
8 Verz. Doubl., 1823, p. 18. 


552 OBERHOLSER, Races of Quiscalus quiscula. (een 


application. The Quwiscalus purpureus of Stephens! is based on 
the Gracula quiscala of Shaw,” and on Wilson’s Gracula quiscala,>, 
both of which are, of course, the same as Gracula quiscula Linneus. 
Also, Quiscalus purpuratus. Swainson,' if, indeed, applicable to this 
species, must be considered a synonym of Gracula quiscula Linneus. 
The case of Quiscalus versicolor typicus is, however, somewhat 
more complicated. This name was first used by Dr. Sclater,® 
not as a subspecific name, but to indicate the typical form of 
Quiscalus versicolor |t. e., Quiscalus quiscula], as was the common 
practice at that time, instead of repeating the specific name as 
we do now, and, therefore, cannot be considered to have nomen- 
clatural status as a subspecific designation. Moreover, Sclater 
includes in the range of his Quiscalus versicolor typicus part of the 
range of the southern bird, and further indicates by his text that 
he did not intend the subspecific term “typicus” as a new name, 
but merely to indicate the typical form of the species as distin- 
guished from the two other subspecies.® 

Mr. Ridgway,’ however, has cited it in his synonymy of Quiscalus 
quiscula quiscula as though it had regular standing, so the name, 
consequently, must date from his introduction, and become a 
synonym of Gracula quiscula Linneus. 

From the above discussion it is seen that all the names applied 
to birds from the southeastern United States are clearly referable 
to the Florida race heretofore called Quiscalus quiscula agleus, 
but which now must stand as Quiscalus quiscula quiscula, and that 
the bird heretofore known as Quiscalus quiscula quiscula must 
have a new name. 


Quiscalus quiscula ridgwayi, nom. nov.® 


Quiscalus quiscula quiscula Auct., nec Linnzeus. 
Cuars. Sussp.— Similar to Quiscalus quiscula quiscula, but larger, 


1JIn Shaw, Gen. Zool., XIV, pt. 1, 1826, p. 48. 

2 Gen. Zool., VII, 1809, p. 458. 

3 Amer. Ornith., III, 1811, p. 44, pl. X XJ, fig. 4. 

§ Anim. in Menag., 1838, p. 298. 

5 Cat. Birds Brit. Mus., XI, 1886, p. 394. 

6 Cat. Birds Brit. Mus., XI, 1886, pp. 394-395. 

7 Bull. U.S. Nat. Mus., No. 50, pt. II, 1902, p. 217. 

8] take pleasure, as a slight token of affection and esteem, in dedicating this familiar 
bird to Mr. Robert Ridgway, whose contributions to the study of this group are well known 


ere 


coy | OBERHOLSER, Races of Quiscalus quiscula. 903 
excepting the bill and feet; upper and lower parts usually much more 
purplish, and barred or mottled with metallic green or blue. 

DerscripTion.— Type, adult male, Washington, D. C., March 30,, 1912; 
H. H. T. Jackson. Forehead between metallic fluorite violet and blackish 
violet, shading to blackish purple, with bronzy reflections on cervix, sides 
of head and of neck; lores velvet black with a greenish or bluish sheen; 
back, scapulars, and sides of breast, metallic greenish bronze mixed with 
metallic purplish bronze, marine blue, and blackish purple; rump purplish 
bronze; upper tail-coverts deep blackish purple with deep blue and bronze 
reflections; tail varying from metallic blackish dusky violet to deep metallic 
indigo blue, the margins of the inner webs of the feathers brownish black; 
wings brownish black with a faint bluish green or purplish sheen, but the 
exposed surfaces of tertials, greater, median, lesser, and the inner primary 
coverts, together with the outer edges of the secondaries, of the same 
color as the cervix, the basal portion of the outer margin of the primaries 
with a pronounced metallic greenish blue gloss, this becoming more pur- 
plish on the inner primaries; outer edge of alula deep dusky dull bluish 
green; chin and throat like the cervix, but the extreme anterior part of the 
chin decidedly deep metallic bluish; jugulum and sides of throat, purplish 
bronze; rest of lower parts metallic deep dusky dull violet, but the sides 
and flanks decidedly bronzy, and the middle of the abdomen dull black 
with little metallic sheen; lining of wing black with greenish, bluish, and 
purplish reflections. Wing, 144 mm.; tail, 186 mm.; exposed culmen, 
30.5 mm.; tarsus, 33.5 mm.; middle toe without claw, 25 mm.! 

Type Locauity.— Washington, D. C. 

GroGrRAPHIC DistripuTION.— Middle eastern United States. Breeds 
north to southern Rhode Island, southern Connecticut, southeastern New 
York, and northeastern Pennsylvania; west to central Pennsylvania, 
extreme western Maryland, eastern West Virginia, southeastern Kentucky, 
central Tennessee, and northern Mississippi; south to central Mississippi, 
central Alabama, and northern South Carolina; and east to central North 
Carolina and the Atlantic coast from Virginia to Rhode Island. Winters 
south to southern Louisiana, southern Alabama, southern South Carolina, 
and probably to Florida. 


Remarks.— In color this race is exceedingly variable. Dr. 
F. M. Chapman has so fully treated ? its color variations that no 
detailed description of these is here necessary. He distinguished 
three color phases: (1) the bottle green, (2) the bronze purple, (3) 
the brassy bluish green; but we should rather consider that there 
are four such color phases, as follows: (1) bottle green, (2) bronze 


1 For further measurements of this subspecies, cf. Ridgway, Bull. U.S. Nat. Mus., No. 50, 
pt. II, 1902, pp. 215-216. 
2 Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Mist., IV, Feb. 25, 1892, pp. 1-20. 


es 


004 OBERHOLSER, Races of Quiscalus quiscula. Oct 


purple, (3) purplish blue or bluish purple, (4) shining metallic 
green, the last of which seems to be of rather rare occurrence. 
The head, rump, and lower parts each have four similar color 
phases. In many cases, in the same individual, these do not all 
correspond with the color phases of the back. Consequently the 
intermediates between these phases and the various combinations 
of colors on the different parts of the bird, together with the ab- 
sence or presence of bars on the upper and lower parts, makea 
bewildering variety of coloration. In fact, no two specimens 
appear to be exactly alike. 

The geographic distribution of this race is confined in general to 
the region east of the Allegheny Mountains, but in the south it is 
extended considerably farther west. Birds from Garret County 
on the Alleghenian plateau in extreme western Maryland are 
intermediates between Quiscalus quiscula ridgwayi and Quiscalus 
quiscula eneus, and represent there the extreme western limit of 
the former. 


Quiscalus quiscula eneus Ridgeway. 


Quiscalus @neus Ripaway, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia, XXI, 
June (= July), 1869, p. 134. 

Cuars. Supsp.— Similar to Quiscalus quiscula ridgwayi, but somewhat 
smaller, and with posterior upper and lower parts uniform brownish bronze, 
without differently colored bars.! 

Tyre Locauiry.— Mount Carmel, Wabash County, southeastern Illi- 
nois. 

GrocraPpuic DistripuTion.— Central and eastern North America. 
Breeds north to central Labrador, James Bay in northern Ontario, Fort 
Churchill in northern Manitoba, and to southern Mackenzie; west to south- 
western Mackenzie, western Alberta, western Montana, western Wyoming, 
central Colorado, northwestern and west central Texas; south to central 
southern Texas, northern Louisiana, western Tennessee, central Kentucky, 
central West Virginia, southwestern Pennsylvania, southwestern and cen- 
tral New York, northern Connecticut, and northern Rhode Island; east 
to eastern Massachusetts, eastern Maine, Nova Scotia, and eastern New- 
foundland. Winters south to southern Louisiana, southern Alabama, 
southern South Carolina, and probably to Florida. 


1 For measurements of this race, cf. Ridgway, Bull. U. S. Nat. Mus., No. 50, II, 1902; 
p. 219. 


ee | OBERHOLSER, Races of Quiscalus quiscula. 5099 

Remarks.— This subspecies differs from both the other forms 
of the species in its brownish bronze upper parts. Except for the 
color of the head, it is very uniform, but this part might be con- 
sidered to have three color phases: (1) purple, (2) blue, (3) green, 
all of which are connected by intermediates. 

So far as the actual amount of difference in typical specimens 
is concerned, it might well be called a species, but it so completely 
intergrades at different points with Quiscalus quiscula ridgwayt, 
that it seems best treated as a subspecies. At some other point 
or points it abuts on either Quiscalus quiscula ridgwayi or Quiscalus 
quiscula quiscula, and the lack of actual intergradation in such 
places does not necessarily indicate that it is a distinct species, 
because this condition is well known to exist in many races of other 
species, between which, however, intergradation does occur at 
other points. Nor can the fact that more or less typical specimens 
of each of two intergrading forms occur in the same breeding 
locality be considered as evidence of hybridism, since many sub- 
species are known to intergrade in this way. In fact, a perfectly 
gradual intergradation over a geographic area is rather the excep- 
tion, since the individual variation in two forms often produces 
considerable irregularity. This is frequently the case even when 
the ranges do not actually meet, and such individual variation 
must, in itself, of course, be considered intergradation. 


506 OBERHOLSER, Notes on N. A. Birds. aes 


NOTES ON NORTH AMERICAN BIRDS. 
IX. 
BY HARRY C. OBERHOLSER. 


FOLLOWING are notes! on four species of North American birds 
belonging to the families Phaethontide, Ardeide, and Charadriide. 


Leptophethon lepturus catesbyi (Brandt). 


Mr. G. M. Mathews has already indicated? that the name 
Phaethon catesbyi Brandt should replace that of Phaethon americanus 
Grant. The latter was originally based* on the bird from the 
Bermuda Islands, and is, of course, the American representative 
of Leptophethon lepturus. It differs from Leptophethon lepturus 
in its somewhat smaller size and less extensive white tips on the five 
outer primaries, the black areas on these feathers being therefore 
larger. Mr. Mathews, like Mr. Grant, treats this form as a distinct 
species, and for this course gives the following rather unconvincing 
reason *: “This bird is only separable by its slightly larger [sic] 
size and the variation in the black markings of the primaries. In 
most genera such trifling differences would only be regarded as of 
subspecific value, but when dealing with Ancient Forms, such as 
the present, this must be given higher value.”’ Examination of a 
series of specimens shows, moreover, that the characters separating 
Leptophethon catesbyi from Leptophethon lepturus are not entirely 
constant, and that the form must, therefore, be regarded as a 
subspecies of the latter. With this view of its relationship, its 
name will become Leptophethon lepturus catesbyt. 


1 For previous papers in this series, cf. ‘The Auk,’ XXXIV, April, 1917, pp. 191-196; 
XXXIV, July, 1917, pp. 321-329; XXXIV, October, 1917, pp. 465-470; XXXV, January, 
1918, pp. 62-65; XXXV, April, 1918, pp. 185-187; XXXV, October, 1918, pp. 463-467; 
XXXVI, January, 1919, pp. 81-85; XXXVI, July, 1919, pp. 406-408. 

2 The Auk, XXXII, No. 2, April, 1915, pp. 195-197. 

3 Phaeton americanus Grant, Bull. Brit. Ornith. Club, VII, No. XLX, December 26, 1897, 
p. xxiv. 

4 Birds of Australia, IV, pt. 3, June 23, 1915, pp. 310-311. 


Vol. oe ol 


1919 OBERHOLSER, Notes on N. A. Birds. 557 


Scezophethon rubricaudus rotshchildi (Mathews). 


The Red-tailed Tropic Bird is included in our North American 
list on the basis of a single specimen obtained by Mr. A. W. An- 
thony near Guadalupe Island, Lower California, on April 23, 18972 
We have recently examined this specimen, which is now No. 21822 
in the collection of the Carnegie Museum of Pittsburgh, Pa., and 
find it to belong to the subspecies Sc@ophethon rubricaudus roths- 
childi, recently described ? from Laysan Island in the Hawaiian 
group. This race differs from Sca@ophethon rubricaudus rubri- 
caudus, trom the region about the Island of Mauritius, in its shorter 
bill and wing; and from Sce@ophethon rubricaudus novehollandie 
(Brandt), from Australia, in its smaller size and paler, less rosy 
coloration. By this change of identification the place of Sc@o- 
phethon rubricaudus rubricaudus in the North American list should 
be taken by Sce@ophethon rubricaudus rothschildi. 


Casmerodius albus egretta (Gmelin). 


The forms of the genus Casmerodius (= Herodias*) are com- 
monly considered distinct species. Mr. G. M. Mathews has, 
however, recently treated? the Australian bird as a subspecies. 
So far as our material indicates, there are, as Dr. R. B. Sharpe 
concludes, three forms of the genus, but all are without doubt 
only subspecies. The principal characters separating these con- 
sist In size, particularly of the tarsus, and in the length of the dorsal 
plumes or train. The colors of the bill, tarsus, and the bare por- 
tion of the tibia, which have been sometimes used as specific dis- 
tinctions, are more or less unsatisfactory for this purpose, because 


1 The Auk, XV, No. 1, January, 1898, p. 39. 

2 Phaéthon rubricaudus rothschildi Mathews, Birds of Australia, IV, pt. 3, June 23, 1915, 
p. 303 (Laysan Island). 

’ Attention has already been called by other writers to the fact that the generic name 
Herodias Boie is asynonym of Egretta Forster, since its type is really Ardea garzetta Linneus, 
as designated by Gray (List Genera Birds, 1841, p. 86). The next available name is 
Casmerodius Gloger, as above given. 

4 Birds of Australia, IIT, pt. 5, March 26, 1914, pp. 431-435. 

5 Cat. Birds Brit. Mus., XX VI, 1898, pp. 88-100. 


508 OBERHOLSER, Notes on N. A. Birds. jas 


of very great seasonal changes; and until more is known regarding 
the actual process and sequence of these changes, it is not safe to 
use the colors of these parts in diagnoses. 

The European form of the species, Casmerodius albus albus 
(Linneeus), which ranges also to Africa and central Asia, is a large 
bird with long tarsi and comparatively short dorsal plumes, the 
latter usually less than 370 mm. in length, and not reaching much 
beyond the end of the tail. Examples from India and Burma are 
somewhat smaller and indicate intergradation with the Australian 
bird, but are, however, nearer Casmerodius albus albus. 

The Australian race differs from Casmerodius albus albus in 
smaller size, particularly of the tarsus, and in somewhat shorter 
dorsal plumes; and Mr. Mathews! has separated it as a fourth 
race under the name Herodias alba syrmatophora (Gould). There 
is, however, apparently no difference between birds from Australia 
and those from the island of Timor, which is the type locality of 
Ardea timoriensis Lesson, either in the length of the tarsus or the 
dorsal plumes. Birds from other localities in the Malay Archi- 
pelago seem to be the same; while birds from Japan and China, 
although somewhat verging toward Casmerodius albus albus, are 
so near the Australian form that they are apparently not satis- 
factorily separable. Thus the birds inhabiting the region from 
Japan and China to the Malay Peninsula and Australia should 
again be united under the name Casmerodius albus timoriensis 
(Lesson). ° 

The American bird, which ranges from the United States to 
Chile and Patagonia, is similar to Casmerodius albus timoriensis, 
but is rather larger and has a much longer train; and it differs 
from Casmerodius albus albus in decidedly smaller size and in its 
longer dorsal plumes, which latter usually measure from 420 to 
500 mm., and reach 100 millimeters or so beyond the end of the tail. 
Since none of these differences is, however, entirely constant in 
relation to either Casmerodius albus albus or Casmerodius albus 
timoriensis, as a study of specimens shows, the American race 
should stand as Casmerodius albus egretta (Wilson). 


1 Birds of Australia, III, pt. 5, March 26, 1914, pp. 431-435. 


ee etebaal| OBERHOLSER, Notes on N. A. Birds. 5909 


Charadrius dubius curonicus Gmelin. 


The Little Ringed Plover, Charadrius dubius Scopoli, is included 
in the North American list by reason of its supposed accidental 
occurrence in Alaska and California. The record from California 
is based on a specimen taken at San Francisco by Mr. E. F. Lorquin, 
and was made the basis of Mr. Ridgway’s 4gialitis microrhynchus, 
This name Mr. Ridgway himself later made? a synonym of Agialitis 
curonicus (Gmelin). This specimen is still in the United States 
National Museum collection, where it is numbered 39523; and an 
examination proves that it is an ultratypical example of Charadrius 
dubius curonicus, as indicated by its very small bill.* 

The record which at present forms the basis for the statement 
that Charadrius dubius occurs in Alaska is that of Mr. J. E. Harting,’ 
who, in recording the specimens obtained by Captain Collins of the 
“ Enterprise,’ mentioned one of this species, but without giving 
a more definite locality than “doubtless obtained in high northern 
latitudes.” It thus can be readily seen that the assumption of 
this specimen’s Alaskan origin is quite unwarranted. There is, 
however, a perfectly valid Alaska record, based on a specimen 
taken on Kodiak Island and recorded as Charadrius alexandrinus 
Pallas.° Without much doubt this record should be put under 
Charadrius dubius curonicus, and, therefore, Charadrius dubius 
dubius should be eliminated from our North American list and 
replaced by Charadrius dubius curonicus. 

The present species we have recently referred to the genus 
Elseya Mathews,® but a more careful examination of its characters 
proves that it does not belong in that group, but is congeneric 
with Charadrius hiaticula Linneus, the type of Charadrius. 


1 American Naturalist, VIII, No. 2, Feb., 1874, p. 109. 

2 Baird, Brewer, and Ridgway, Water Birds of North America, I, 1884, p. 160. 
3 Cf. Hartert and Jackson, Ibis, 1915, pp. 531-533. 

4 Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond., 1871, p. 117. 

5 Schalow, Journ. fiir Ornith., 1891, p. 259. 

6 Cf. The Auk, XX XV, No. 2, April, 1918, p. 206. 


560 General Notes. [oct 


GENERAL NOTES. 


European Widgeon on Long Island in Winter.— On January 11, 
1919, Mr. Wm. de Forest Haynes of New York City shot a fine drake of 
this rare duck, Mareca penelope, on the main pond of the Southside Club 
near Oakdale, Long Island. The specimen was mounted, and is now in 
the club collection in the clubhouse. This is the third winter record, and 
I am indebted to Mr. Samuel Bettle for bringing it to my attention.— 
Luptow Griscom, New York City. 


Breeding of the Black Duck in Lake Co., Ohio.— Dawson in his 
‘Birds of Ohio,’ states, ‘‘ If Black Ducks formerly bred in the northern 
part of this state, as Wheaton supposes, they were probably of this form ”’ 
(Anas rubryses tristis). Jones, ‘Catalogue of Ohio Birds’ (1903), states, 
“Dr. Wheaton regarded the Black Duck as a casual summer resident in 
the northern part of the state, but I find no corroborative evidence to that 
effect.’’ In the same writer’s article, ‘ Nineteen Years of Bird Migration at 
Oberlin, O.’ (Wilson Bulletin, December, 1914), the Black Duck is listed 
as a migrant only for Lorain County. Henninger in ‘ Notes on Some Ohio 
Birds’ (Auk, January, 1910) gives a list of breeding ducks for the state, but 
the Black Duck is not included, nor have I found any isolated record of the 
Black Duck nesting in Ohio. Thus it seems the state is without an authen- 
tic record, the only evidence being Wheaton’s supposition. 

Therefore I am pleased to report that the Black Duck has nested regu- 
larly the past five years at the Mentor Marsh, and doubtless much longer 
than this. Adults have been seen in June, and both young and adults 
through July and August. Probably not over two pair have bred in any one 
year, asa late August flock of twenty-five was the most seen at any one time. 
Two specific dates upon which I observed young ducks under unusually 
favorable conditions are as follows: August 16, 1917, four young birds 
had fed out of the lily pads into open water that touched the base of the 
wooded bank skirting the marsh, and I worked slowly down to within 
twenty feet of them, seated myself and watched them for half an hour with 
my glass without them appearing disturbed in any way, although fully 
grown and able to fly. Under such favorable circumstances, I was even 
able to see the narrow edge of white, back of the violet-purple speculum, each 
time one chanced to turn on its side and spread a wing. 

July 13, 1919, I flushed two young, about two-thirds grown, from under 
my very feet at the edge of the marsh. These also gave me the best pos- 
sible view of the wing marks. 

Another pleasing experience happened the last week in August, 1918, 
about dusk. Immature Black Ducks were coming from the direction of 
the Mentor Marsh to drop into the more open water of the Richmond 
swamp to feed. A pair of wary old adults, however, would not alight for 


Bray | General Notes. 561 


some time, but finally did so some distance away; and as I knew I could 
“sneak upon them”’ for observation at that particular place, I did so. 
As I cautiously looked around a corner of button-bushes, there they sat in 
the floating duck-weed, heads up and ready to jump on the instant, while 
surrounding them, unconcernedly feeding, were seven young Wood Duck, 
another species which breeds regularly in the wooded swamp between the 
two localities mentioned. The young Blacks are very tame up to the 
time of the hunting season, and I have thrown green apples at one in open 
water without being able to make it fly, although the water all but splashed 
the bird. This seems strange considering the extreme wariness of the adult 
bird.— E. A. Doouirrin, Painesville, Ohio. 


Ruddy Shelldrake on the Atlantic Coast.— Casarca ferruginea has 
been taken in Greenland but not in the United States, so far as I know, 
until recently. A specimen was captured at Barnegat Bay in 1916 
by Mr. W. H. Eddy, of Darby, Pa., and was identified by the editor of 
‘The Auk,’ who, on general principles, was disposed to regard it as an 
escaped bird. Whether this was true or not we cannot know. It appears 
that the bird is not very uncommon in captivity, for Mr. Lee S. Crandall, 
Curator of Birds at the N. Y. Zoological Park, tells me that they have 
specimens there, and that the species has been bred on at least two occasions 
by Mr. William Bronwin, of Rye, N. Y. ° 

On the other hand, a reported capture of this species on Currituck Sound 
in North Carolina has been current there for many years. This occurrence 
was related to me by Mr. W. L. MeAtee, of the Biological Survey, but as 
the specimens were not preserved it did not seem best to note the incident 
until a specimen actually killed in the United States could be recorded. 
Mr. Eddy has furnished this specimen. 

The reported North Carolina capture took place at a shooting resort kept 
by Jasper White near what is now known as Water Lily Post Office, Curri- 
tuck County, N. C. Jasper B. White, the son of the man who kept the 
resort, was then a young man. A Mr. Fred Simonds, of Reading, England , 
in company with his uncle, had come to Currituck Sound for the shooting 
and was staying with J. B. White’s father. The two young men were shoot- 
ing together one day when a flock of five ducks came to them, of which three 
were shot. These birds were new to J. B. White, but Fred Simonds recog- 
nized them and told White that they were Ruddy Shelldrakes. Later, 
after he had returned to England, Mr. Simonds sent White a copy of 
‘ British Game Birds and Water Fowl,’ with colored plates, by Beverly R. 
Morris, and a letter received at the same time told White that the birds 
they had shot were figured in the book, and the plate of the Ruddy Shell- 
drake was at once recognized. 

Mr. Jasper B. White writes me that the birds taken in Mr. Simonds’ 
company were killed in 1886. He adds that he has seen birds of this 
Species several times since then, and that they always appear in very cold 
weather. For some time he has been endeavoring to collect specimens for 


562 General Notes. [one 


Mr. McAtee, and recently winged one of a flock of five, which he followed 
and almost overtook. He was within a few feet of it before it got under 
the ice and escaped, and is confident of the identification. 

The Barnegat specimen of the Ruddy Shelldrake secured by Mr. Eddy 
was killed November 14, 1916, while he was gunning on the east point of 
Sloop Sedge in Barnegat Bay. It was mounted and is still in his possession. 
It was recently again examined by Dr. Stone, who detected in the specimen 
no evidences of past captivity. It seems in all respects normal. 

A “Yellow” Duck, quite unlike any bird known to old gunners who saw it, 
was killed last winter near Poplar Branch, Currituck Co., N. C., but the 
specimen was not preserved. 

These reports suggest that at any time we may learn of other examples of 
Casarca ferruginea taken on the Atlantic Coast.— Gro. Brrp GRINNELL, 
New York City. 


Exanthemops Elliot an Excellent Genus.— The name Lxanthemops 
Elliot (New and Unfig. Birds North Amer., II, pt. IX, 1868, pl. XLIV 
and text; type, by original designation, Anser rossii Cassin) is now used in 
subgeneric sense under the genus Chen, for Anser rossti Cassin. It was, 
however, originally proposed as a generic term; and the group somewhat 
recently has been rediagnosed and revived by its original describer (Elliot, 
Wild Fowl U.S. and Brit. Poss., 1898, pp. 268, 269). That this, moreover, 
is well justified is evidenced from an examination of the three species, Chen 
hyperborea (Pallas), Chen caerulescens (Linnzeus), and Chen rossii (Cassin). 
The first and second of these are strictly congeneric and constitute the 
genus Chen Boie; but the last differs so much and so fundamentally, that 
it ought not to remain in the same genus. The group that it represents, 
to which of course the name Exanthemops Elliot is applicable, may be 
diagnosed as follows: Similar to Chen, but bill relatively as well as actually 
shorter and not as long as the head; commissure not widely gaping; base 
of maxilla much wrinkled and warty in adult; anterior outline of the feath- 
ering on the sides of the base of the maxilla nearly straight, instead of tri- 
angular or strongly convex; tarsus 13 (instead of 14) times the exposed 
culmen; wing about 8% (instead of 7) times the exposed culmen. One of 
the characters given by Elliot (Wild Fowl U.S. and Brit. Poss., 1898, p. 268) 
— “ depth [of bill] at base less than half the length of the culmen,” appears 
not to hold, since there is no difference in this respect between Exanthemops 
and the species of Chen. The genus Exanthemops as here recognized is 
monotypic, and its only species will now stand as Hxanthemops rossit 
(Cassin).— Harry C. OBERHOLSER, Washington, D. C. 


Notes on the Structure of Anseranas semipalmata.— The remark- 
able Australian Pied or Semipalmated Goose has been variously regarded 
as a member of the Anserinee (Newton, Dictionary of Birds), as an inde- 
pendent subfamily, Anseranatinz (Salvadori, Catalogue of Birds), and as 
of family rank, Anseranatide (Stejneger, Standard Natural History). 


wane | General Notes. INDO 


In spite of its pronounced characters, it bears a general resemblance to 
the African Spur-winged Goose (Plectropterus), and as in two or three struc- 
tural features the latter evinces a slight approach to Anseranas, the resem- 
blance is possibly more than a superficial one. 

The most evident peculiarities of the Pied Goose are the semipalmate feet, 
long, incumbent hind-toe, and long, sharp claws. The bill is peculiar, 
the face bare, and the top of the skull is elevated into a large, feathered pro- 
tuberance. Internally a remarkable feature is the very long, coiled trachea. 
Pycraft states that the convolutions of the intestines are comparatively 
primitive in style. 

In addition to these characters, I wish to call attention to several others 
some of which at least have probably not been recorded. 

Gadow states that in the Anseres the oil-gland has but a single pair of 
orifices. I have examined several genera, including Plectropterus, Cygnus, 
Branta, Dendrocygna, and Nettion, and have found no exceptions to this 
statement except in Anseranas. Of the two individuals of this goose seen, 
one had eight, the other sixteen orifices in the large, heavily tufted oil- 
gland. 

In the Anseres the standard number of middle primary coverts on the 
under side of the wing is six. I have determined this character in twenty- 
three genera belonging to nine of the eleven subfamilies recognized in the 
British Museum Catalogue, including Cereopsis. With the exception only 
of Anseranas, and Plectropterus, I have found invariably six of these coverts. 
The single specimen of Plectropterus examined had five; the two individuals 
of Anseranas had but two and three respectively. 

Every one of the numerous genera of the order inspected, including 
Cereopsis and Plectropterus, has had the pollex furnished with a sharp claw, 
with the sole exception of Anseranas, both specimens of which agreed in the 
entire absence of a claw. 

I have investigated the arrangement of the deep plantar tendons in 
Nettion, Cygnopsis, Plectropterus and Anseranas. In all but the last the 
two tendons are thoroughly fused for a variable distance above the base of 
the toes. In Anseranas there is no such fusion, the two tendons being 
loosely connected by two thin bands of tendinous tissue. 

Of skeletal peculiarities, it may be noted that the furcula is V-shaped 
rather than U-shaped, as is usual in the Anseres, and with the symphysis 
enlarged; also that the palatines are very narrow, the rear edge of the meta- 
sternum only slightly notched and the pelvis of peculiar shape. 

In the ‘Cambridge Natural History’ the misleading statement is made 
that “‘Anseranas and Cereopsis alone” have “the foot semipalmated.” The 
former alone is truly semipalmate; in Cereopsis the webs are rather deeply 
incised, but this is also the case in the genus Nesochen. 

A more serious error originated with Yarrell in 1827 (Trans. Linn. Soc., 
XV, 383). This has been quoted by various authors, the latest being 
Mathews in his ‘ Birds of Australia’ (1914), and so far as I know has never 
been corrected. Yarrell described and figured the coracoids in two indi- 


564 General Notes. loge 


viduals of this Goose. The right coracoid was unlike the left, and the 
two birds differed greatly from each other in the form of these bones. I 
have recently had the opportunity of examining the skeletons of two adult 
males received from the New York Zoological Park. In both, the coracoids 
are symmetrical, alike, and of normal Anserine form. There can be little 
doubt that in Yarrell’s specimens the coracoids were diseased and abnormal. 
Furthermore, Yarrell designated the coracoids as “ clavicles,” and the quo- 
tations of his description have given no hint of his erroneous use of this 
term. 

Several other Anatine genera or groups of genera are strongly marked, 
such as the Mergansers (Mergine), the Torrent Ducks (Merganettine), 
the Cape Barren Goose (Cereopsine), and the Swans (Cygnine). The last 
two are probably the most distinct. The Swans are distinguished by their 
bare lores, large number of neck vertebre, very long necks, great size, and 
wholly white or black and white plumage. 

Anseranas 1s In my opinion by far the most aberrant member of the 
Anseres. None of the other groups mentioned approach it in the number 
of unique distinctive characters, and there can be little doubt that it is 
entitled to family rank. It is surely better characterized than certain 
commonly recognized families of Galline, Limicole, and Psittaci— W. 
DEW. MILiER, American Museum of Natural History, New York City. 


Sarkidiornis sylvicola in British Guiana.— I was very much inter 
ested in Mr. Crandall’s note (The Auk, X X XVI, No. 3, July, 1919, p. 419) 
relative to the occurrence of Sarkidiornis sylvicola Ihering near Barcelona, 
Venezuela, in November, 1918, because I had previously learned of the- 
presence of this species in British Guiana in the same year. 

On July 12, 1918, Mr. James Rodway, Curator of the Georgetown 
Museum, wrote me that he had just received for the Museum ‘a pair of 
Ducks, Sarcidiornis carunculata, shot on the East Coast, but hitherto not 
recorded for the Colony.’’ Upon my inquiry for further details, Mr. 
Rodway, under date of September 13, 1918, wrote: ‘In regard to the 
Sarcidiornis we have a pair shot on the East Coast, Dem. at Pln. Hope, by 
Mr. W. Mearns, who saw flocks of 25 or more and killed several for the 
table. He says they are excellent eating.’ In the meantime a note had 
been published in ‘Timehri’ (Vol. V, Third series, Aug., 1918, p. 168) 
stating that, through the kindness of Mr. W. Mearns of ‘ Hope,” the 
Museum had received a head of a male Sarcidiornis carunculata. 

It is apparent from the dates of the records that the ducks were on the 
north coast of South America for at least five months, from July to Novem- 
ber. So far as I know they have not been observed in Surinam. Von 
Berlepsch (Nov. Zool., XV, 1908, p. 313), however, lists the species in his 
‘ Birds of Cayenne’ (ex Eyton).— Tuomas E. PEenarp, Arlington, Mass. 


An Overlooked Record of the Trumpeter Swan.— In ‘The Auk,’ 
Vol. X X XII, January, 1915, Mr. Henry K. Coale had a very interesting 


er laa | General Notes. 565 


article on the present status of the Trumpeter Swan in North America. 
In this he enumerates all the records of that bird that he could find, either 
from personal correspondence or from the literature at hand. Let me point 
out one notable omission. In the ‘ Wilson Bulletin,’ September, 1902, p. 
80, there is a record for the Trumpeter Swan (Olor buccinator) in April, 1900, 
from Jackson County, Ohio (Henninger, Birds of Middle Southern Ohio). 
The history of this specimen is as follows: The bird was shot on either 
April 18 or 19, 1900, near Wellston, Jackson Co., Ohio, and sent in the flesh 
to Mr. Oliver Davie, the well-known author and taxidermist of Columbus, 
Ohio. Mr. Davie and I were good friends and talked about this specimen 
several times. Mr. Davie’s identification was certainly correct. He 
mounted the bird and returned it to the owner, whose name I have for- 
gotten, nor do I know what has become of the bird by this time.— W. F. 
HENNINGER, New Bremen, Ohio. 


Little Blue Heron on Long Island, N. Y.— On April 5, 1919, I was 
shown a Little Blue Heron (Florida cerulea), which had been found dead, 
a day or two before, on the banks of the Nissiquogue River, at Smithtown, 
Long Island, N. Y. The body was sent to me by express and received 
on April 11, 1919. I took it up to the American Museum of Natural 
History and found my identification was correct. It was too far gone to 
be mounted, but dissection proved it to be a male. The stomach was 
practically empty. It was in the blue plumage, and on April 5, when I 
first saw it, was in first-class condition. I foolishly did not take it with me, 
as I did not realize its rarity, and only wrote for it afterwards. 

Eaton only gives four spring records for New York, viz.: ‘‘ Lawrence 
(N. T.), April 3, 1885, Far Rockaway, L. I.’”’; (Byram) Dutcher’s Notes, 
April 7, 24, 1891, Shelter Island, L. 1; Dutcher’s Notes, Montauk, L. I., 
April 20, 1898,”’ and Binghamton, May 8-12, 1900. Miss Lilian Hyde.— 
Rost. B. LAWRENCE, New York City. 


Wood Ibis in Massachusetts.— Through the thoughtfulness of Mr. 
E_H. Forbush and the Massachusetts Commission on Fisheries and Game, 
the Boston Society of Natural History has been presented with a young 
Wood Ibis (Mycteria americana Linné) taken at Chilmark, Martha’s Vine- 
yard, Massachusetts, on November 26, 1918, by James A. Vincent. 

This is the second record of the species for Massachusetts, and the fifth 
for New England; Maine, Vermont, and Rhode Island each having one 
instance of its presence.— W. SpracuEn Brooks, Boston Society of Natural 
History. 


Roseate Spoonbill in Utah.— On July 2, 1919, a Roseate Spoonbill 
(Ajaia ajaja Linn.) was brought to me for identification. It had been killed 
at Wendover, Utah, by Joseph Condley and was one of five that appeared 
on his ranch. The specimen was a male and the skin is now in my col- 
lection. 


566 General Notes. [oce 


This is the first record I have of the occurrence of this species in Utah. 
Wendover is close to the Nevada line in the midst of an arid region.— 
CLAUDE T. Barnss, Salt Lake City, Utah. 


Roseate Spoonbill in North Carolina.— On April 17, 1919, Edward 
Fleisher wrote of having seen a Roseate Spoonbill on Smith’s Island, located 
at the mouth of Cape Fear River, North Carolina. He wrote: “I had a 
perfect study of it with my field glass in my hand and my heart in my 
mouth.” 

Mr. Fleisher’s home is in Brooklyn, New York, and his ornithological 
studies are well known to many.— T. GiuBerT Pearson, New York City. 


Growth of a Young Killdeer (Oxyechus v. vociferus).— Last summer, as 
usual, a pair of Killdeers nested in the old familiar pasture near my home. 
Efforts at finding the nest were fruitless, but on July 21 a young one was 
finally discovered, which became subsequently an object of much interest. 
During the next few weeks, through a series of harmless captures which 
were as surprising to me as to the captive, because with each liberation I 
never expected to see it again, I came into possession of the interesting 
figures which indicate the growth of the little one during the period of a 
month. 

On August 4 the primary wing feathers were sprouted, but still in the 
sheath. On the last date which I examined it — August 18 — these were well 
developed and the young able to fly short distances. The tail down was 
also largely replaced by fine feathers, as was also that of the remainder of 


the body. 
Growth measurements of a young Killdeer taken in millimetres: 
July 21 July 28 Aug. 4 Aug. 18 

Total Length 88 104 150 215 
Height to Shoulder 68 80 85 110 
Tarsus 27 30 33 40 
Bill (Premaxilla) 11 13 15 19 
Tail 25 40 45 70 
Wing (Primaries) 110 


—J. Dewey Soper, Preston, Ontario. 


Mating ‘‘Song’’ of the Piping Plover.— April 1, 1917, was a fine 
warm and sunny spring-like morning on Plymouth Beach. There were 
quite a number of Piping Plovers (4gialitis meloda). They were pattering 
around up and down the beach, and many seemed to be laboring under 
some excitement. They were not a flock, as such, but seemed to be birds 
drawn together by a common mating instinct. Some were apparently 
paired and others were as apparently pairing. I noticed a group of three, 
two of which chased each other around just like two male Robins fighting 
over a female. Some flew around rather low over the beach (some of them 
rather close to me), in apparent sexual excitement, and uttered notes while 


ge | General Notes. 567 


on the wing. These were different from the usual mellow, rather low notes 
which the birds were uttering more or less all the time while on the sand. 
Their notes on the wing were higher in tone and rather long drawn out, and 
mixed in with them were some little chuckles. The whole might be 
described as some sort of a mating song.— Joun A. Faruny, Melrose, Mass. 


Upland Plover in New York.— Since 1917 there has been a steady and 
most satisfactory increase of the Upland Plover (Bartramia longicauda) in 
the town of Coxsackie, Green Co., New York. The average date of their 
arrival is April 24 and they leave about September 12. 

On May 8 this year, while walking five miles along a road bisecting the 
Flats that lie west of the village, I counted the songs of over fifty individuals 
and saw nearly as many. 

They often alight on top of the telephone poles bordering the road, where 
one can approach them within twenty feet; give their bubbling call and 
fly off only to circle around to another pole further on. They begin nesting 
May 6-8 and then become very shy, and their song is rarely heard. 

By July 15 the young birds are well grown. On that date, 1918, one 
came from the field down to a stream, bobbing its little round head, bathed 
and dried its feathers, all within fifteen feet from where I was sitting on the 
opposite bank. 

Their occurrence in the Hudson Valley seems to be unusual, as I can find 
no record of that fact.— CHARLOTTE BoGarpus, Coxsackie, N.Y. 


Turkey Vulture at Plymouth, Mass.— A Turkey Vulture (Cathartes 
aura septentrionalis) was shot at Manomet, Plymouth, Mass., July 25, 
1910, by Mr. Wallace Miles. I saw the dead bird at Mr. Miles’ farm.— 
Joun A. Farupy, Melrose, Mass. 


Harris’s Hawk in Kansas.— As I was reading the ‘General Notes’ in 


“The Auk’ for April, 1919, I noticed that C. D. Bunker of Lawrence, 
Kansas, stated that a female Harris’s Hawk (Parabuteo unicinctus harris?) 
had been killed near Lawrence, Kansas, on December 25, 1918. 

I wish to state that on the 14th day of December of 1918 I found a male 
Harris’s Hawk which had been shot, in Wichita on the Little Arkansas 
River. This hawk is mounted and is in my collection.— LeRoy SnypEr, 
Wichita, Kansas. 


_ Tachytriorchis, the Generic Name for the White-tailed Hawk.— 
The name Tachytriorchis Kaup (Class. Siug. und Vogel, 1844, p. 123; 
type by monotypy, Falco pterocles Temminck [=Buteo albicaudatus 
Vieillot]) now stands in our Check-List of North American Birds as a sub- 
generic heading under the genus Buteo. Examination of its type species 
( Buteo albicaudatus Vieillot), however, shows that it represents undoubtedly 
a generic group, its short tail, long tarsus, and long wing-tip trenchantly 
separating it from Buteo. In detail, Tachytriorchis differs from Buteo in 


568 General Notes. lon 


having the tail less than 3 the length of the wing, whereas in Buteo it is more 
than 3 of the latter; the tarsus about + the length of the tail (instead 
of much less), also 2%, or more, times the exposed culmen with cere 
(instead of 23 times or less); wing about 43 times the length of the tarsus 
(instead of 55 times or more); and the primaries exceeding secondaries by 
nearly the length of the tail (instead of, as in Buteo, by not over 2 of its 
length). 

Mr. Charles Chubb (Birds Brit. Guiana, I, 1916, p. 231) has recognized 
this genus, but into it puts also Buteo abbreviatus Cabanis. The latter 
action, however, is doubtless an inadvertence, since this species is abso- 
lutely congeneric with the type and other species of the genus Buteo. The 
forms of this genus, T'achytriorchis, are as follows: 

Tachytriorchis albicaudatus albicaudatus (Vieillot). 
Tachytriorchis albicaudatus exiguus Chapman. 
Tachytriorchis albicaudatus colonus (Berlepsch). 
Tachytriorchis albicaudatus sennetti (Allen). 
— Harry C. OpprHorser, Washington, D. C. 


A Flight of Broad-winged Hawks and Roughlegs in Lake Co., 
Ohio.— While seated by a country roadside, overlooking some low mead- 
ows on April 27 of this year, four medium-sized hawks came low and 
directly over my head. Hastily turning my glass upon them, I secured 
enough field marks to pronounce them Broadwings (Buteo platypterus). As 
I followed them with the glass their number suddenly increased to eight, 
and then, as I swept the sky, it seemed to be alive with them and I counted 
twenty-five after some had vanished in the distance. Realizing I was at 
last witnessing a hawk flight I kept a good watch and within a short period 
of time saw nearly a hundred. Soon after the first bunch of Broadwings 
had passed came some larger birds, singly, or at most by twos, flying high 
and far apart. When one was directly overhead another would be seen 
coming in the distance. Their identity puzzled me at first, until finally 
one came comparatively low, and the black belly band of a Roughleg 
(Archibuteo lagopus sancti-johannis) was plainly discernible. Among these 
large hawks was a single Osprey. All the Roughlegs were sailing with 
the wind and flying a straight northeasterly course, while the Broadwings 
kept in bunches and circled about to some extent while still progressing 
steadily in the same direction. The day was clear, with a fresh wind blowing 
steadily. The most interesting fact to me was the late date the Roughlegs 
were leaving the country and the number of them — some twenty all told — 
and I have reason to believe I missed a good many by not being farther 
along the road, where I could also have seen across the wide valley of the 
river back of my position. As to all of the large hawks being Roughlegs, 
I think there is no question, since all were of the same size and silhouette, 
and the one which came low was easily identified. And I know the Eagle, 
Redtail and Red-shouldered, too well to have confounded them. <A num- 
ber of Roughlegs were resident here through the winter— E. A Doo.itTTLe, 
Painesville, Ohio. 


ae 


Oy is9 | General Notes. 569 


Buteonide versus Accipitride.— The name of the family of Falconi- 
formes, now called Buteonide, has been recently changed to Aquilide by 
Dr. Ernst Hartert (Végel Paliarkt. Fauna, Heft VIII [Vol. 2, Heft II], 
August, 1913, p. 1087). If this alteration was made because the generic 
name Aquila Brisson (Ornith., I, 1760, p. 419) was supposed to be the 
genus in this family first described, the fact that Accipiter Brisson appeared 
on an earlier page of the same volume (Ornith., I, 1760, p. 310) was appar- 
ently overlooked. Hence, if the earliest described generic name be con- 
sidered the necessary basis for the family name, the family of birds now 
known as Buteonide must be ealled Accipitride instead of Aquilide. 
If, on the other hand, we consider that the type genus of this group is the 
one on which the family name was first based, the designation of this family 
will still become Accipitride; since Vigors (Zool. Journ., I, 1824, p. 316), 
who was the first to subdivide the original family Falconide, created five 
groups, which he called “ Stirps,”’ as follows: <Accipitrina, Falconina, 
Buteonina, Milvina, and Aquilina; and in seeking a name for the remainder 
of the family after the separation of the true Falcons, we must take the 
first mentioned group in Vigors’ list, which is, of course, Accipitrina, based 
on Accipiter, as the type genus. Thus, if we determine the proper family 
name of the Buteonidz by either of these two rules, its designation will 
become Accipitride.— Harry C. OBERHOLSER, Washington, D. C. 


Snowy Owl in Detroit, Mich.— A fine male specimen of the Snowy 
Owl (Nyctea nyctea), in perfect winter plumage, was captured on Belle 
Isle, Detroit, April 14, by Mr. Robert Flowerday, superintendent of the 
park, and is now in a cage at the Zoo. The bird was shot twice, and so badly 
wounded that it was believed at the time that it would not survive, but it 
was cared for successfully, although at first refusing to eat. So far as is 
known, this is the first time that a Snowy Owl has come to this vicinity 
and remained so late, although there is a previous record (Taverner) of one 
having been seen at the Flats, April 5, 1906. The late wandering of this 
bird is all the more remarkable from the fact that the winter was one of 


exceptional mildness during all the months.— Erra 8. Wixson, Detroit, 
Mich. 


The Name of the Black Cuckoo.— Hartert (Nov. Zool., X, 1903, p. 
232), in his review of the genus Eudynamys, considered it logical to treat 
the forms of the Black Cuckoo as subspecies of orientalis, based on Cuculus 
orientalis Linné (Syst. Nat., I, 1766, p. 168), which he regarded as the oldest 
name, and which in the twelfth edition of Linné has page precedence over 
C. honoratus, C. scolopaceus, and C. niger. At present the name orientalis 
is restricted to the bird from Southern Moluccas, while honoratus is applied 
to the Indian bird, with scolopaceus and niger, both from Bengal, as syno- 
nyms. Asa matter of fact, however, the names C. scolopaceus and C. niger 
had previously been used by Linné in the tenth edition (Syst. Nat., I, 1758, 
p. 111), based respectively on ‘‘ The Brown and Spotted Indian Cuckow ” 


570 General Notes. [oct 


and ‘“ The Black Indian Cuckow ” of Edwards (Nat. Hist. Birds, II, 1747, 
pl. 59 and pl. 58), which represent quite unmistakably the species in ques- 
tion. The name scolopaceus, which stands first on the page, should be used 
for the species, and the fourteen races currently recognized must be known 
as i— 

Eudynamys scolopacea scolopacea (Linné). 

Eudynamys scolopacea malayana Cabanis and Heine. 

Eudynamys scolopacea harterti Ingram. 

Eudynamys scolopacea mindanensis (Linné). 

Eudynamys scolopacea facialis Wallace. 

Eudynamys scolopacea melanorhyncha 8. Miiller. 

Eudynamys scolopacea orientalis (Linné). 

Eudynamys scolopacea everetti Hartert. 

Eudynamys scolopacea rufiventer (Lesson). 

Eudynamys scolopacea alberti Rothschild and Hartert. 

Eudynamys scolopacea salvadorii Hartert. 

Eudynamys scolopacea cyanocephala (Latham). 

Eudynamys scolopacea subcyanocephala Mathews. 

Eudynamys scolopacea flindersii Vigors and Horsfield. 

Tuomas E. Penarp, Arlington, Mass. 


Aerial Evolutions of a Flicker.— While out with the class in bird study 
on May 25, 1919, my attention was attracted to a large bird going through 
some very peculiar maneuvers. He was just across a ravine and about 
four hundred yards away from where we stood. When first noticed, he 
was about fifty feet from the ground and ascending in peculiar, bumpy, 
and jerky spirals. This was maintained until a height of about 350-400 
feet was reached, when, after a short pause, a reverse of practically 
the same performance was gone through. The Flicker (Coloptes auratus 
luteus), for as such he was identified by this time, then alighted in a cherry 
tree, just above a female that we had previously failed to notice, and com- 
pleted the performance by going through his more familiar courting antics. 

. I wonder if others have seen the Flicker do this.— C. W. Lristpr, McGraw 
Hall, Ithaca, N.Y. 


Two Recent Records of the Horned Lark in Western New York.— 
Owing, perhaps, to the paucity of published records, local ornithologists 
have for some time regarded the Horned Lark (Otocoris alpestris alpestris) 
as rare, or at least uncommon, in this general locality. In treating of the 
subspecies in his ‘ Birds of New York’ (1914), Eaton remarks that for 
fifteen years he has failed to secure any specimens on the shores of Lakes 
Erie and Ontario. He adds, however, that the bird unquestionably does 
occur there in the winter or during the migration time in the late fall. 
These facts have led me to place on record two recent dates of its occur- 


rence near the village of Hamburg, about fifteen miles south of the city of 
Buffalo. 


' 


ae | General Notes. aval 


On December 17, 1916, I located a flock of about thirty larks feeding on 
weed seeds in the fields east of Hamburg. Although there might have 
been some Prairie Horned Larks (O. a. praticola) present, all the individuals 
examined by me were undoubtedly Horned Larks. At very close range, 
I noted the deep sulphur-yellow throat and also the yellow line over the 
eye. I might add that I am very familiar with the resident subspecies, 
which is one of the characteristic birds of our open country. 

On March 22, 1919, while walking across a large plowed field south of 
Hamburg, I had the good fortune to flush a flock of at least sixty larks. 
The individuals of this band were much wilder than Prairie Horned Larks, 
and would take wing without apparent cause, much resembling Pipits 
(Anthus rubescens) in this respect. I was somewhat disappointed on 
account of this fact, for I had not as yet been able to make the identifica- 
tion with my glass. However, it soon developed that the birds habitually 
wheeled about in the air and returned to near the spot from which they 
were originally flushed. When opportunity finally presented itself for 
work with the glass, I was both surprised and pleased to note that many 
members of the flock had so very much yellow on the head and throat 
that identification as O. a. praticola was out of the question. A fairly large 
percentage of the birds, however, were evidently duller, probably females. 

Inasmuch as I do not recall finding comparisons of the notes of the two 
subspecies in the literature, it might be of interest to append here a few 
remarks on the calls and songs. It seemed to me that the ordinary notes 
uttered as Otocoris alpestris alpestris takes wing are decidedly sharper than 
similar ones of O. a. praticola. Several of the males were singing on March 
22 —not the flight song, of course, but the ebullient gurgling which is 
usually uttered from the ground in the case of the resident subspecies. 
Although it might easily have been that only young males were singing, 
the song of Otocoris alpestris alpestris, as I heard it, was decidedly not as 
finished a performance as that of O. a. praticola. The initiated would 
immediately recognize it as belonging to some form of Otocoris alpestris, 
but it certainly lacked the smoothness of O. a. praticola, and the notes 
themselves were decidedly wilder — Tuomas L. Bourne, Hamburg, N. Y.* 


Abnormal Beak of a Horned Lark (Otocoris alpestris praticola).— 
While collecting on May 8, 1911, I secured a very interesting and curious 
example of natural abnormality — an adult Horned Lark with a peculiar 
enlargement of the lower mandible. This member, of a dull bone tint 
(abnormal even in color), projected at least nine thirty-seconds of an inch 
beyond the upper mandible, terminating in a very blunt tip slightly darker 
than elsewhere. The upper mandible was also somewhat exceptional, but 
reversed, being smaller than is usual with the species, by about two-six- 
téenths of an inch, the normal length being approximately seven-sixteenths. 

The bird was feeding with one other on a newly cultivated field, and when 
taken a small spherical lump of mud was frozen on the long lower mandible, 
reminding one of the protected tip of a foil. The night before had been 


572 General Notes. [oor 


very cold and the frozen ground, thawing under a warm morning sun, had 
been adhesive enough first to stick, then*with the chill of the air to again 
congeal upon the projecting member as the bird sought its breakfast. 

The Lark was in perfect physical condition when collected, notwithstand- 
ing the cumbersome disadvantage under which it lived, a circumstance 
as interesting to the teratologist and others as it is also surprising, consider- 
ing the malformation of so highly essential an organ.— J. DEwry Soper, 
Preston, Ontario. 


The Raven in Connecticut.— On May 25, 1919, we observed a Raven 
(Corvus corax principalis) about on the border line between the towns of 
Norwalk and Westport, Conn. The bird was circling over a large salt 
marsh. We observed it through 12-diameter binoculars. The soaring 
flight, the widespread primary feathers, large size, and coal-black color were 
clear without a glass. Through the glass we could see the heavy raven 
beak, and that the head was feathered and black, points that left no doubt 
in our minds of the identification of the bird. Both of us are familiar with 
the Raven in other regions where it is of more common occurrence.— CLIF- 
FORD H. PANGBURN AND ArETAS A. SAuNpDERS, Norwalk, Conn. 


A Strange Blue Jay Flight.— May 25 of this year found me hunting 
warblers along a narrow tree-bordered roadway skirting a swamp, a few 
hundred yards from the beach of Lake Erie. By chance I looked up and 
saw five Blue Jays flying about fifty feet above the tree tops, and before 
my glance had ended others came into view and still others behind them. 
They were flying northeast and keeping very quiet. I began to count them, 
and in about fifteen minutes’ time had seen ninety-five Jays. And this 
does not begin to number those that passed, for, on account of the trees, 
my view to each side was much restricted, and there is no telling how many 
had gone on before I casually looked up. They were in a long stream, with 
now and then a bunch of five to fifteen. Can any one suggest a plausible 
reason for Jays to be flying in such numbers during the nesting season?— 
E. A. Doouitte, Painesville, Ohio. 


Evening Grosbeaks about Beverly Farms, Mass.— In early May, 
when I moved to Beverly Farms from Florida, my neighbors, Mr L. A. 
Shaw and Mr. Gordon Means, spoke to me of the many Evening Grosbeaks 
which they had seen during the latter part of the winter. They told me 
that from 75 to 100 birds appeared about March 10 and were seen daily 
after that date. They never entered the woodland at all, but spent their 
entire time about the shrubberies and tree plantations of the lawns and 
gardens between Pride’s Crossing and Beverly Farms. Their number was 
somewhat diminished when I saw them first about May 14, and on the night 
of May 19 all of the others disappeared from the neighborhood.— T. 
Barsour, Museum of Comparative Zoology, Cambridge, Mass. 


‘ert General Notes. 573 


Evening Grosbeaks at Boonville, N. Y.— From May's to 101 was 
in Boonville, N. Y., and during that time I observed daily a flock of twenty 
Evening Grosbeaks. I was there again on the fifteenth, but could not find 
any of the birds. This is an unusually late date. Jam informed that they 
were seen continuously through the winter. They were also reported at 
Constableville, eight miles to the north, during the previous winter. The 
birds which I saw in Boonville were feeding on the ground and in low shrubs. 
— F.C. Smita, Utica, N.Y. 


The Evening Grosbeak on Long Island, N. Y.— On the afternoon of 
February 4, 1919, my attention was attracted by a series of finch-like notes 
uttered by a flock of Evening Grosbeaks ( Hesperiphona vespertina vesper- 
tina) that was flying eastward. An excited, but rather poor imitation of 
their call notes caused them to swerve from their course and pitch into a 
clump of wild cherry trees standing in a hedge-row about a quarter of a mile 
away. Hastening tothe spot, I found them on the ground busily feeding on 
the pits of the wild cherry. With their powerful bills it seemed an easy task 
for them to split the pits and remove the kernels. Although not shy, they 
appeared to be very restless, keeping up an almost continuous calling, 
flying back and forth between the trees and ground. The birds, thirteen 
in number, were all in the plumage of the female with the exception of three 


or four that were in the black and yellow dress of the male. A portion of 


the flock soon flew to a yellow locust tree overgrown with vines of 
the poison ivy, and began picking among the ivy seeds. On my near 
approach they took fright and flew away to the eastward. No others 
were seen until March 26, when a flock of eleven was seen in the same 
locality. 

On the morning of April 4 a flock of fifteen was seen flying north near 
the railroad station at Miller Place. Their flight was high and very direct. 
They were very noisy, keeping up a continuous calling, but refused to be 
diverted from their course by my imitations of their calls. 

April 9 a small flock spent most of the day among the maples and black 
alders inasmall swamp. I believe that all of the birds noted were merely 
transients and did not remain anywhere in the vicinity during the periods 
between the dates on which they were noted. The winter of 1918-1919, 
one of the mildest on record, would not lead one to expect a visit from these 
birds. The two preceding winters were of unusual severity, yet nothing 
was seen or heard of these birds on Long Island. There was a scarcity of 
suitable food for these and similar birds during the past two winters, 
more noticeable, perhaps, during the winter of 1918-1919 than in 1917-1918. 
A similar condition existed in many sections of the north, and may have 
been a contributive cause to the Grosbeaks wandering so far from their 
normal range in search of new feeding grounds.— A. H. Heutme, Miller 
Place, Long Island, N. Y. 


Evening Grosbeaks again at Lakewood, N. J.— Lakewood, New 
Jersey, harbored Evening Grosbeaks again on February 20, 1919, and it is 


574 General Notes. [oct 


perhaps worth while to record the fact, since but one record! of their 
appearance there seems to have been made. Eight or ten birds formed the 
flock, which I watched at close range for an hour or so, at the corner of the 
Lake Drive and Forest Avenue, whilst they were feeding in trees and on 
the ground. About half of them were males. 

The writer was at Lakewood, except for an absence of five weeks, from 
September 18, 1918, to March 22, 1919, and did not see Grosbeaks on any 
other occasion.— NaTHAN CLIFFORD Brown, Portland, Maine. 


Evening Grosbeak (Hesperiphona v. vespertina) in Ohio in May.— 
There were few if any reports of the Evening Grosbeak west of the Alleghenies 
for the winter of 1918-19, so it somewhat surprised me when on May 18 
Mr. Glenn Vesy told me there was a male bird down in the Grackle roost, 
a thick growth of various haws and wild apples on the flats of Grand River. 
Knowing that he would not be liable to make a mistake, I looked through the 
growth late that afternoon but without result. However, upon visiting 
the place next morning the bird was there and, as reported, was a male in 
the best of adult plumage. The ground in places was strewn with the 
fallen haw apples of the fall before, and it was upon these that the bird was 
feeding. He was still there on the afternoon of May 20, but the next day 
I failed to find him.— F.. A. Dooxirtiy, Painesville,Ohio. 


Henslow’s Sparrow in New York and Virginia.— One of the best 
recent bird discoveries in the Ithaca region was the location of a breeding 
colony of Henslow’s Sparrow (Passerherbulus henslowi) on a sedgy hill side 
just south of Wilseyville (10 miles south of Ithaca), N. Y. On May 14, 
1916, Mr Ludlow Griscom found three male birds on this rather high hill. 
The spot has a northern exposure and the birds were fond of sitting on the 
sedgy stools or in the tops of pine seedlings. They were very rail-like and 
elusive. On June I of the same year Mr. Griscom showed several of us 
the site, Dr. A. A. Allen being of the party. At that time we found five 
males, a few females, and a nest with one egg and three young. Thenestis 
very difficult to find. On June 8 the same five males were in evidence. The 
following year, on July 5, 1917, Messrs. Allen and G. A. Bailey found 
another nest with four eggs. In 1916 (July 2), after the discovery of it at 
Ithaca, the author found one Henslow’s Sparrow at Emerson, N. Y., at the 
northern end of Cayuga Lake. In 1918 another colony was found on the 
game farm of the university. This year (1919), on May 11, Mr.S. E. R. 
Simpson found it near Varna (three or four miles northeast of Ithaca, 
N.Y): 

The year following my introduction to this species, on May 30, 1917, 
Mr. Francis Harper showed me the Alexandria Va. colony and I deter- 
mined to watch for the species southward. I heard it in two or three 
localities southward to Elmont, Va., where I made a definite journal record 


1Auk, XXXIV, p. 477. 


| 


| General Notes. 575 


(May 31, 1917). On May 30, 1917, from Alexandria to Fredericksburg 
we did not record it. This species was heard south of Petersburg for a short 
distance, and from this vicinity (1918, Camp Lee) Mr. Harper wrote me that 
he and Mr. Holt recorded it as well. The above notes would indicate a 
much wider range in Virginia than that given by the author of ‘ The Birds 
of Virginia, 1913’ (p. 224).— A. H. Wriaut, /thaca, N.Y. 


The Dickcissel in Virginia.— On May 31, 1917, in the outskirts of 
Richmond, Va., Dr. H. H. Knight and I discovered a fine singing male 
beside the road in what looked to be a real estate development tract. We 
were following the main auto route from Washington into Richmond. I 
was attracted to it by first seeing it — my first live Dickcissel; while Dr. 
Knight recognized the sound as a reminder of his home country (Missouri). 
This record is published because the author chanced to see a note a few 
months ago (Wilson Bulletin) by an ornithologist of Virginia to the effect 
that he had not seen the Dickcissel in Virginia for twenty years.— A. H. 
Wricut, Ithaca, N. Y. 


Piranga erythromelas versus Piranga olivacea.— Since the discovery 
that Fringilla rubra Linnzeus (Syst. Nat.. ed. 10, I, 1758, p. 181) is the 
Summer Tanager instead of the Scarlet Tanager, the latter has passed 
under the name Piranga erythromelas (Vieillot). There seems, however, to 
be an earlier name for the Searlet Tanager in Tanagra olivacea Gmelin 
(Syst. Nat., I, li, 1789, p. 889). This is based on “VOlivet”’ of Buffon 
(Hist. Nat. Ois. [original edition], IV, 1778, p. 269); the “ Olive Tanager ” 
of Pennant (Arctic Zool., II, 1785, p. 369, No. 288); and the ‘‘ Olive Tana- 
ger”? of Latham (Gen. Synop. Birds, II, pt. 1, 1783, p. 218, No. 4); and 
the habitat given as ‘‘ Cayenna et Noveboraco.” The diagnosis given by 
Gmelin is as follows: “ 7. olivacea, gula et pectore flavis, abdomine albo, 
remigibus rectricibusque fuscis margine albis.”’ This diagnosis is almost 
a literal translation, though somewhat abridged, of the descriptions given 
by Pennant and Latham, both of which latter are essentially the same. 
In fact, Latham refers to Pennant’s then unpublished ‘ Arctic Zoology,’ 
and Pennant in this work cites Latham’s account. A comparison of the 
diagnosis given by Gmelin and the descriptions of Latham and Pennant 
with a peculiar transition plumage of the Scarlet Tanager, and their 
descriptions of their female Olive Tanager with the female Scarlet Tanager, 
leaves no doubt at all of their entire agreement. 

This peculiar transition plumage above mentioned seems to be little 
known, probably because of its brief duration and consequent rarity in 
collections. It is a stage, alike in both sexes, between the juvenal and the 
first autumn plumages, in which the juvenal feathering of the entire upper 
parts is retained, but on the anterior lower surface the streaked condition 
of the juvenal stage has been replaced by olive yellow; while the abdomen 
has lost so much of its yellowish tinge that at superficial glance it looks white. 

The descriptions given by both Pennant and Latham were based on speci- 


576 General Notes. ee 


mens from New York in Mrs. Blackburn’s collection, taken, as practically 
all her New York specimens were, near Hempstead, Long Island. It is of 
interest in this connection to note that both Pennant and Latham appar- 
ently had some suspicion that their Olive Tanager was the female of the 
Scarlet Tanager, and their reasons for describing it as a separate species 
are given in the following footnote by Pennant in Latham’s work (Gen. 
Synop. Birds, II, pt. 1, 1783, p. 218): “ From their being found at this 
last place [New York], and my having such authority for describing both 
sexes, I must conclude that the species is distinct; otherwise I should have 
suspected it to have been the female of the last described [Scarlet Tanager].”’ 
In the description of the female of the ‘‘ Olive Tanager,” there is the infor- 
mation, omitted by Gmelin in his diagnosis, that the “ under sides of the 
body [are] pale yellow,’ which is the chief difference between the adult 
female of Piranga erythromelas and the transition plumage described above. 
It is, therefore, evident that the male of Gmelin’s Tanagra olivacea is the 
Scarlet Tanager in this odd-looking transition plumage; and its female the 
adult female of the Scarlet Tanager. 

Gmelin, Latham, and Pennant all cite “ Olivet Buff.” as a synonym, and 
for this reason include Cayenne in the habitat, but the description given by 
Buffon, based on a specimen from Cayenne, is possibly not of the female 
Scarlet Tanager. At least, if it is, the alleged locality is probably wrong, 
since the species is not known to occur in the Guianas. At any rate, this 
description of Buffon does not figure at all in the diagnosis given by Gmelin, 
by Latham, or by Pennant; hence in determining the identity of Tanagra 
olivacea it may be disregarded as a possibly erroneous synonym. 

From the above discussion it appears that the technical name of the 
Searlet Tanager, now Piranga erythromelas (Vieillot), should become 
Piranga olivacea (Gmelin), and its type locality, Hempstead, Long Island, 
New York.— Harry C. OpERHOLSER, Washington, D. C. 


The Tanagrine Genus Procnopis Cabanis.— Tangara (formerly 
Calliste, Calospiza) is by far the largest genus of Tanagers, comprising 
about sixty distinct species. These exhibit great diversity in coloration 
and vary considerably in the form of the bill, but in other respects they 
agree rather closely. 

On the one hand they are allied to the slender-billed genera Chlorochrysa 
and Tanagrella and on the other hand to the small-billed genus Procnopis. 
Of the latter Sclater (Cat. Birds Brit. Museum, X1, p. 93) remarks ‘‘ This 
little group of three species comes very close to Calliste, but has a shorter 
and wider bill and rather longer wings in proportion.’’ The difference in 
the size and form of the bill between Procnopis and the majority of species 
of Tangara is very marked. Unfortunately for the standing of Procnopis, 
however, there are certain species of Tangara that in the form of the bill 
agree essentially with the members of the former group. This is particu- 
larly the case with 7. nigroviridis, which in its small but wide, depressed bill, 
with weak lower mandible and short gonys, is very similar to Procnopis. 


Vol. ae General Notes. 507 


In the relative length of the wing it does not differ from the latter genus, 
while in coloration it bears a strong resemblance to P. atrocerulea (the type 
of the genus). 

T. dowi somewhat suggests 7’. nigroviridis in coloration, and while the 
bill appears to average larger and stouter, yet some individuals agree 
essentially with the latter. 7. fucosus, closely allied to T. dowi, and T. 
cabanisi (known only from the type specimen), associated with 7. dowi 
and T. nigroviridis by Sclater, I have not seen. TT. cabanisi, judging by 
the colored plate in ‘The Ibis’ (1868, pl. III), has a much larger and thicker 
bill than its supposed allies. In 7’. heinet (atricapilla auct.) and T’. argen- 
tea the bill is depressed and much swollen laterally, the throat feathers are 
bifurcate and the sexes are unlike in color. T. cyanoptera, while agreeing 
in the last respect and to a considerable extent in coloration, has a thicker 
bill. 7. fulvicervix and T. melanotis are small-billed species not very dis- 
similar to the species of Procnopis in color, but the bill is narrower and less 
depressed. 

If Procnopis is to be recognized as a genus, Tangara nigroviridis must be 
transferred to it. Even with this change, however, it is extremely doubtful 
whether the distinction can be maintained, so complete is the intergradation 
between the two groups. I suggest, therefore, unless we are ready to divide 
Tangara into a number of ill-defined genera, an undertaking of doubtful 
practicability, that Procnopis be united with Tangara. If this is done, 
the latter genus will not be appreciably more heterogeneous in any respect 
than it is at present. 

It may be noted that Tangara argentea was originally described as a 
Procnopis in the paper in which the latter genus was described by Cabanis. 
Also that Procnopis was not recognized by other authorities until Sclater 
(in the British Museum Catalogue) decided that P. atrocerulea was more 
nearly allied to Diva (type D. vassorii) than to Calliste and united it with 
Diva under the older name Procnopis. 

Under the arrangement suggested the three species of Procnopis will 
stand as: 

Tangara vassorii (Boiss.) 
Tangara branickii (Tacz.) 
Tangara atrocerulea (Tsch.) 
W. DeW. Mutter, American Museum of Natural History, New York City. 


Early Arrival of the Tree Swallow in Plymouth.— The Tree Swallow 
is an ‘early bird” in Plymouth, as elsewhere. But Plymouth seems to be 
unique, so far as the published records for eastern North America show, 
as the station of the earliest arrival of this “ early bird.” The average date 
for six years of first Tree Swallows seen at the Head of the Beach, Plymouth, 
is March 16. This compares with the usual “ first week of April” reports 
from most places and with the Ipswich (on the other side of Massa- 
chusetts Bay) ten-year average of March 28 and with the St. Louis ten- 
year average of March 24 and with the Washington earliest date seen of 


578 General Notes. [out 


March 28. The inference is, of course, that if the Tree Swallow is watched 
for by more observers, and if stations as favorable as Plymouth are selected, 
the Plymouth average will be duplicated or even surpassed. 

Following are dates of arrival in Plymouth (Chiltonville — ‘‘ Head of the 

Beach ”’): 

1908. Mar. 7. First swallow. 

‘“ 16. Aflock. (A mild first week of March.) 

1909. “11. A flock of 20 swallows. 

“12. Same flock. 

“17. Snowing. Flock sits on a telephone wire near the beach 
in p.m. 22°-24° above zero. 

“18. Acold and blustering morning. No swallows. 

“19. A few swallows at the beach. 

“25. <A flock of swallows. feeding on the bayberries, of which 
there are a plenty this spring. Very blowy and rough, 
and from noon a hard rain fell, which increased at night 
almost to a gale. But not a low temperature. 

1910. ‘* 20. A south wind has blown probably for 36 hours. Warm 
today. Quite a lot of swallows are here. Don’t 
think they were here yesterday. 

«22. Saw some swallows in the morning at the head of the 
beach. Also saw two or three swallows in East 
Middleborough. 

1911. “ 18. A swallow or two. 

«22. A number of swallows seen. 

“« 23. Quite a lot of Swallows that settled by the hundreds on 
the bayberries. 

‘« 24. Moreswallows today. 

‘* 26. Swallows lively and plentiful. Two or three days last 
week were very rough, cold, and wintry, yet the swal- 
lows were flying around today. I wonder where and 
how they pass the cold nights. 

1912. “19. A flock of 50 swallows seen between 11 and 12 o’clock. 

1918. ‘23. Saw the first swallows — a dozen or more. 

1914. Apr. 4. Saw one swallow —also a flock of 8 or 10. Strange 
that they should be so late this year. 

1917. Swallows appeared during the week of March 18, after 
the snowy conditions resulting from the great storm of 
March 4 and 5 had disappeared. This storm probably 
made them late this year. But once arrived in Plym- 
outh, the Tree Swallows seem to come to stay. They 
hang on in the face of bad conditions and rarely beat 
aretreat, as they so often do elsewhere. To illustrate: 
“ April 9 was sunny and searcely coolish. But at 
5 a.M. on the 10th a blizzard began, with snow and a 
hard blow, so that the street cars soon stopped run- 


~~ 


her ioia’ | General Notes. 579 


ning on account of the drifts. But I saw three Swal- 
lows flying in the morning in the driving snow. It was 
not, however, a cold storm, although it cleared off 
cooler and blustering, with a good deal of snow on the 
ground. Nevertheless, I saw more swallows during 
the day. Birds in general must be faring hard, 
although it is not a bitter snap.” (I note in my 
journal of April 12 that there is still a lot of snow on the 
ground and that the storm must have been of some 
force because “I hear of great numbers of Shelldrakes 
in the bay at South Mashpee driven in I suppose by 

the storm.’’) 

1918. Mar. 18. First swallow. 
JoHN A. Fartey, Malden, Mass. 


Hybrid Warbler in Missouri.— A hybrid of the Blue and Golden- 
winged Warblers was collected near Lexington, Mo., May 3, 1919, by my 
friend, Mr. Clark Salyer. The specimen was collected on one of the heavily 
wooded bluffs of the Missouri River. With the exception of one particular, 
the specimen is a Lawrence’s Warbler. It has the coloring of the Blue- 
winged Warbler as a basis, and has the black throat patch of the Law- 
rence’s Warbler, but the black on the cheeks is like the black on the Blue- 
winged Warbler, not like that of the Golden-winged. In other words, the 
black does not form an ear patch, but is merely in front of the eye and 
through it. The specimen is six and one-fourth inches in length,— over 
an inch longer than either species from which it is derived. It is a male, 
in excellent condition, and, as a cabinet skin, now forms part of the 
collection of Mr. Salyer— E. Gorpon ALEXANDER, Lexington, Mo. 


The Orange-crowned Warbler on Long Island in April.— On April 
13, 1919, at Miller Place, Long Island, N. Y., I watched an Orange-crowned 
Warbler ( Vermivora celata celata) for some time as it hunted among the 
buds of some apple trees. It was very active and apparently in full vigor. 
It was seen under the most favorable conditions, often within ten or twelve 
feet leaving no doubt in my mind as to its identity. I have occasionally 
met with this species on Long Island in the fall, but this rather unseason- 
able occurrence is the first vernal record I have.— A. H. Hetme, Miller 
Place, Long Island, N.Y. 


Peculiar Brooding of the Black-throated Blue Warbler.— A female 
Dendroica cerulescens, whose nest I found June 19, 1918, in Rowe, Mass., 
made a unique display of herself as a close-sitting bird. The nest, a beauti- 
ful and elaborate structure, was three feet from the ground in a hemlock 
sapling which was one of a thick clump of the same sort that bordered a 
wood road. The eyes of the young were open. The female was off the 
nest when I found it, but when I returned, a quarter of an hour later, 


Y Au 
580 General Notes. eee 


she was on. I got within two feet of her, but she would not fly. To get 
nearer seemed like “‘ adding insult to injury,” so I did not try to stroke 
her back, as I have done before with a brooding bird. But it was not her 
bravery that made this close-sitting bird unique; it was the unusual way 
in which she protected her young from my gaze. She had spread the 
white feathers of her lower parts out so completely over the young that 
there was not a vestige now visible of the four young birds that I had 
found a short time previously filling the nest so full. She “ fluffed ’”’ herself 
out so as to hide all traces of the young. For a moment I even thought 
that during my absence of a few minutes she had brought a great deal of 
some soft white stuff as additional lining for the nest, as breeding birds some- 
times do. 

To quote from my journal: ‘She made a beautiful picture. The whole 
effect was wonderful. The bird seemed to be sitting in a billowy mass of 
eider down, or cotton, that swelled, or rather bulged up all around her, a 
regular ‘ bed of down.’” This cewrulescens was a remarkably fearless bird. 
Two days later I went to the nest again. The young had flown, but were 
close by. It was nearly dusk in the woods. The female “ chipping,” and 
with ‘‘ shivering” wings, came very close, almost as close as she could 
get without touching me.— JoHNn A. Fartey, Malden, Mass. 


The Yellow-throated Warbler in Central New York.— In view of 
the fact that Dendroica dominica comes into recent ‘ sight record corre- 
spondence” (Auk, July 1917, p. 373), it might be unwise to record this 
species on such evidence, but for the fact that none of the three or 
four records come from northern, central, or western New York. All 
previous records are from Long Island. It has hitherto been recorded 
as follows: The first record is from Crow Hill, Kings County (see Dutcher, 
‘Auk,’ 10, 277; and Lawrence, Ann. Lye. Nat. Hist. of New York, 6, 8). 
The second record is also from Long Island, Oyster Bay, July 4-8, 1907, a 
bird of this species discovered by Mrs. E. H. Swan, Jr., identified by Theo- 
dore Roosevelt, and recorded in ‘Scribner’s Magazine,’ volume 42, page 387”’ 
(Eaton, E. H., Birds of New York, Part 2, p. 424). The third record was 
made at Brooklyn, N. Y., April 28, 1917, by Edward Fleisher (Bird-Lore, 
May-June, 1917, No. 3, p. 150). The fourth was made at the same place, 
a day following, April 29, 1917 (‘Auk,’ X X XIV, July, 1917, pp. 341-342). 

The bird Mr. 8. E. R. Simpson and I saw was in high spruce trees one 
half mile west of Spring Lake, Conquest, Cayuga Co., N. Y. When we first 
heard it my companion was looking for Myrtle, Black and White, and Black- 
throated Blue Warblers to complete a list of 95, and I said instinctively, 
‘““T guess there is your Myrtle Warbler.’ ‘ No,’’ he replied, ‘“‘ we had 
better look at it. It is Yellow-throated Warbler.” I felt the determina- 
tion absurd considering its range, but the bird proved a fine male Dendroica 
dominica, and was clearly seen with glasses (x4) and with naked eye at 
25-50 feet. I know the true Yellow-throated Warbler and could see no 
striking yellow before the eye in this bird. Inasmuch as we had not the 


Vol. ae 2 
1919 


General Notes. 581 
bird in hand, some may consider it venturesome to hold it to be the Syca- 
more Warbler, yet that is the natural assumption of the student of bird 
ranges, and my determination, although I employ the caption of ‘‘ Yellow- 
throated Warbler.” The Sycamore Warbler has never been recorded in 
the state, and the above position will have to be adopted until a specimen is 
taken. This Sycamore Warbler with the Golden-winged and Hooded 
Warblers and other forms of the northern end of Cayuga Lake might tend 
to substantiate the suspicion that some of the breeding forms and others 
at the north end of this lake (but absent or rare at the southern end) enter 
in their migration from Ohio and the west and not directly from the south. 
The Sycamore Warbler occurs in Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and in Ohio 
to Lake Erie, and might stray eastward into the Upper Austral arm along 
the south shore of Lake Ontario. 

The song of this individual hardly impressed us as like the Water-Thrush, 
of which we had previously heard numerous breeding examples the same 
day and for two days previous, nor of the Louisiana Water-Thrush, so 
common here at Ithaca, nor of the form or quality of the Indigobird. It 
sounded like a louder, fuller, and more ringing song of a Myrtle Warbler. 
This comparison and our first identification of the song as that of the 
Myrtle Warbler was made in entire ignorance of Mr. Andrew Allison’s 
characterization of the Myrtle’s song as “ not unlike that of the Syeamore 
Warbler,” and might be contributory evidence to prove our bird the Syca- 
more Warbler.— A. H. Wricut, Ithaca, N. Y. 


Nesting of the Myrtle Warbler in Southern Massachusetts.— The 
breeding of the Myrtle Warbler (Dendroica coronata) at Webster, Mass., 
was an interesting event of the present season. On May 17 I noticed the 
female carrying nesting material into a group of white pines that stood 
on the edge of a pine grove of two or three acres. This grove adjoined an 
open pasture. After considerable search I located the nest 40 feet up in 
a white pine two feet in diameter. It was near the top of the tree. 

On May 29 my friend, E. H. Forbush, and myself climbed the tree and 
found two eggs in the nest. 

The fact that the set was still incomplete after ten days (for on May 18 
the female had her nest well along toward completion) is to be accounted 
for probably by the excessive precipitation and cool, damp, backward 
weather of the week of May 18. There were very heavy rains on two 
days, while the general temperature was low throughout the week. 

The female sat on her eggs while the tree was climbed and only flew when 
the nest-limb was jarred. 

The nest was 10 feet out on the limb and was snugly set ina crotch. It 
was well built of rootlets, straws, and the like, and was heavily lined with 
hens’ feathers. A Bluebird’s feather was worked into the outside of the 
nest. The structure was deeply cupped and was very “‘ snug,”’ for its edge 
all around was built to slightly overhang the interior. The eggs were 


582 General Notes. lou 


speckled at the greater end chiefly, where there was more or less of a ring 
on a background of grayish white. 

This nesting of D. coronata at Webster, Mass., in southern Worcester 
County, on the Connecticut State line, in transition country with fauna 
almost purely Alleghenian, is of interest. It may be remarked en passant 
that within one-quarter of a mile of this white pine grove, where the Myrtle 
Warbler had its nest, was a wooded laurel swamp with scattered black 
spruce, where a Hooded Warbler was in full song (May 23) and a pair of its 
cousins, Sylvania canadensis, were building a nest. 

While D. coronata has long been known as a summer resident of many 
of the elevated parts of Massachusetts, although less numerous than either 
D. maculosa or D. cerulescens, this Webster breeding of the bird appears 
to be the first recorded case of a nest of the species in Massachusetts.— 
Joun A. Faruey, Malden, Mass. 


The Cerulean Warbler (Dendroica cerulea) in the Catskills.— Santa 
Cruz Park is a little community of cottages in the Catskill Mountain 
woods, a little southwest of the center of Greene County, having an altitude 
of about 2000 feet. The cottages harmonize well with their surroundings 
and are not sufficiently obtrusive to seriously affect the natural environ- 
ment of the mountains. While deciduous trees have rather the upper hand, 
there is a very formidable rivalry of spruce, balsam, and hemlock. 

Arriving here late in May for a month of bird study, almost the first 
bird which demanded our serious attention was the Cerulean Warbler, 
hitherto unknown to us. 

Between May 29 and June 28, hardly a day passed without giving this 
evasive bird more or less of our attention, sometimes amounting to several 
hours in the course of the day. 

A bird more difficult to observe I have rarely if ever met with. His 
life seemed to be confined almost entirely to the tops of the tallest decidu- 
ous trees, where he would generally feed, with apparent design, on the side 
most remote from the would-be observer, exhibiting a wariness not expected 
on the part of a warbler, and finally leaving the tree, the first intimation of 
his departure being a more distant song. He never remained in the same 
tree-top more than eight or ten minutes at a time and yet rarely ventured 
out of hearing distance from the center of his range. Fortunately, he would 
sometimes take a perch on a bare twig and sing for several minutes, but the 
perch was always high and generally with the sky as a poor background for 
observation. Had it not been for the almost incessant singing, being heard 
almost constantly from daybreak until nearly dark, the task of identifica- 
tion would have seemed hopeless. 

The musical exercises of the bird consisted of an alternation of two dis- 
tinetly different songs, so difterent indeed that until the bird was caught 
in the act we never for a moment suspected a single authorship. One song 
suggested slightly that of the Magnolia Warbler but rather: softer, four 
syllables, though not quite so well defined as in the Magnolia. The other, 


peieal General Notes. 583 


for want of something better, might be compared with the song of the 
Parula Warbler, a short buzzing trill rising in the scale, much louder and 
less lispy than the song of the Parula. The songs were each of about one 
second duration, rendered approximately eight or ten times per minute. 
Altogether the performance was quite musical, in sweetness far above the 
average warbler song. These two songs were generally alternated with 
clock-like regularity, though occasionally the bird preferred to dwell upon 
one or other of his selections for the greater part of the day. Like the 
Blackpoll Warbler and some others, the beak was opened very wide while 
singing, a great help in connecting bird and song. 

The fact that the bird was so closely confined to a very restricted area 
gave us great hope of finding a nest, which hope, however, was not realized. 
Neither did we succeed in identifying a female, but on the 27th of June, 
the day before we were obliged to leave, our bird was seen carrying food in 
his beak, which was rather good circumstantial evidence that the Cerulean 
Warbler was breeding in the Catskills —S. Harmstep Cuuss, New York 
City. 


Carolina Wren ( Thryothorus I. ludovicianus) Nesting in Rhode Island. 
— On August 1 I arrived for a few weeks stay in Bristol, R. I., and at once 
was attracted by the notes of a Carolina Wren from a swampy thicket 
behind the house on Metacom Avenue where I was living. On August 2 
I secured a glimpse of both parents and one of the young. ‘This is, I 
believe, the second record for this species in Bristol, and the fifth for the 
State, though I have not followed the avifauna of the State for twenty years, 
and other records may have been made.— R. Heser Howe, Jr., Thoreau 
Museum of Natural History, Concord, Mass. 


A Short-billed Marsh Wren Colony in Central New Hampshire.— 
On July 17, 1919, I found a small colony of Cistothorus stellaris, probably 
not numbering over six pairs, in a small and not very wet meadow in 
Sandwich, N. H. The wrens were in full song. I saw two birds with food 
in their bills, but was unable to learn whether the young were in or out of 
the nest, for, although I found five nests, none was occupied, and one was 
built in 1918. The other four were all fresh made, and green as grass could 
make them, but were all “ fake nests.” 

Their nests, as a rule, were set nearer the ground than the many nests 
of the species that I have found in Massachusetts; nor were they in hum- 
mocks, which may be explained by the fact that in this meadow there were 
nohummocks. Two or three of the nests were supported in part by narrow- 
leafed cat-tails, together with the usual fine grass, instead of by fine grass 
exclusively, as is so often the case, particularly when a hummock is chosen 
for a site. 

Searcely more than two miles away, in a sphagnum swamp of mixed 
growth, where considerable spruce and less balsam grew, a Tennessee 
Warbler sang incessantly in the dead top of a maple. 


584 General Notes. [oct 


This appears to be the most northern reported colony of C. stellaris in 
New Hampshire, while the Tennessee Warbler on the same date seems to 
be the most southern summer record of this species in the State.— JoHNn 
A. Farirey, Malden, Mass. 


Red-bellied Nuthatch (Sitta canadensis) in Alabama.— In 1891 
Dr. William C. Avery recorded the capture, on October 4, 1888, of an adult 
male Red-breasted Nuthatch at Greensboro, Alabama (Am. Field, Vol. 
XX XV, p. 55, January 17, 1891). As far as known to me, this is the only 
published record of the occurrence of the species within the State. 

On January 30, 1919, I assisted Mr. Lewis 8. Golsan in the capture of a 
male Red-breast about two miles east of Prattville, Alabama, in the woods- 
pasture of Mr. J. B. Golsan, and at the same time heard another individual 
calling in the pines near by. 

Concerning this species Mr. Golsan writes that he collected a female 
at the same place on December 22, 1918, and that he saw and heard indi- 
viduals there from that date until April 23, 1919. Mr. Golsan’s actual 
sight records are as follows: December 22, 1918, one; January 30, 1919, 
one; February 13, one; March 16, four; March 23, two; April 6, three; 
April 14, two; April 17, two; April 21, one; April 23, one. The birds 
were heard almost daily in the pines near the barn lot by Mr. Golsan as he 
went about his work. A large part of their time was spent searching the 
cones of Pinus palustris, P. echinata, and P. teda. Mr. Golsan estimates 
the number seen and taken at ten individuals. 

It seems remarkable that this boreal bird should appear so far south 
during the mildest winter the entire country has experienced in years. 
Seldom severe, the late winter and early spring in central Alabama were 
exceptionally mild. Rather one would have expected Red-breasted Nut- 
hatches here the previous winter, which was as rigorous as the one just past 
was clement. 

In this connection it seems worthy of note that though I observed num- 
bers of White-breasted Nuthatches in the vicinity of Camp Upton, Long 
Island, during the past winter, and watched especially for Red-breasts, 
none were seen.— Ernrgst G. Hout, Barachias, Alabama. 


The Blue-gray Gnatcatcher on Cape Cod.— On November 9, 1915, 
in Dennis, Cape Cod, Massachusetts, I saw a Blue-gray Gnatcatcher 
(Polioptila c. cerulea). The locality was about two miles from Cape Cod 
Bay. It was an Indian summer day with blue haze and a warm sun. The 
Gnatcatcher remained for a short time in a tangle of vines and blackberry 
bushes by a wall. As usual the little Polioptila was the embodiment of 
nervousness, a pent-up bit of feathered energy. It continually cocked its 
head and flirted its tail. Now and then it uttered its short, insect-like, 
unbird-like note. It was not shy.— JoHN A. Fartey, Malden, Mass. 


Strange Conduct of a Robin.— It may not he fair to the bird to report 
its conduct to the world ornithological, but an apparently perfectly good 


yer | General Notes. 585 


male Robin conducted himself in a most unseemly manner for the greater 
part of April at the auto station on Belle Isle, the city park of Detroit. 

During some very severe weather he came into the station one morning 
when a door had been left open and was taken care of until the storm abated, 
when he was permitted to depart. Immediately upon reaching the great 
outdoors he returned to one of the windows and beat upon ijt. The matron 
in charge, under the impression that he wished to come back into the warm 
room, opened the door, but he flew away. He returned shortly and 
renewed his attacks upon the window, but when attempts were made to 
invite him in he left. This action on the part of the bird continued for 
hours, day after day. He would take a position on the railing surrounding 
that particular window and dash up on the glass repeatedly, as though 
engaged in mortal combat, until driven away by some one. No matter 
how often he would be frightened away he would return so quickly and 
keep at his one-sided fight so long, it was a wonder that he found time to 
procure necessary food. An idea of his stay on the railing may be gained 
from the fact that the droppings underneath accumulated until the platform 
resembled a hen house. 

Finally, by my advice, the window was smeared all over the outside with 
a chalky substance and the Robin fought it no more, but transferred his 
attacks to another window near the other end of the station, where he 
again found hisenemy. When this window was allowed to remain open the 
bird would go away, but he finally discovered that any window in the 
station furnished an adversary worthy of his prowess, so he continued to 
fight his shadow. And as three sides of the station are of glass he was 
kept pretty busy without being able to administer a knockout blow. 
After each attack the hated enemy would spring up as peppery as before. 
During the time when the bird, was fighting the glass the conduct of the 
female was most peculiar. She would remain on the lower limb of a near- 
by tree, occasionally making remarks which might easily be translated as 
being, “‘ Go after him, old man, he insulted me.” 

I have often seen or heard of a Robin engaging in fisticuffs with his shadow 
on a window pane, but I never knew a bird to keep so persistently at it for 
so long a time.— Erta 8. Witson, Detroit, Mich. 


A Three-legged Robin (Planesticus m. migratorius)— Early in June of 
the present year Mr. H. K. Coale of Chicago presented me with the 
skinned trunk of a young Robin that he had collected, which was found to 
possess three perfect legs. Two of these limbs were upon the left side, the 
lower one of the two being functional in all respects, while the other one, 
articulated above it, was probably of no service to the bird in any way 
whatever, although it was perfect, even to include all the toes. This 
specimen I carefully cleaned, and found the following conditions present in 
the pelvic part of it, all the remaining bones and articulations being perfect 
and normal: 

The sacrum is curved uniformly throughout its length, the external 


586 General Notes. a 
Oct. 


marginal line of the left side being convex outwards, and presenting some 
osseous enlargements at the terminations of the transverse processes, 
especially posteriorly. There is no abnormality of the right hand moiety 
of this pelvis, and the bones of the limb on that side are in every way normal. 

On the left side the skeleton of the limb is normal in every particular, 
as are all the lower portions of the pelvis, including the acetabulum, which 
latter affords a perfect articulation for the femur. Surmounting this 
perfect part, however, there is to be observed the larger portion of the left 
moiety of a second pelvis which presents various distortions and abnormali- 
ties, and these involve the upper parts of the pelvis below it. In the 
supernumerary bone the ilium is replaced by a tumerous osseous mass, In a 
direct line above the cotyloid cavity of the inferior pelvis. Backward 
and downward from this is the second acetabulum on this side, and in this 
cavity a perfect femur articulates. This is the femur of the third leg, and 
it has been, near its trochanter, completely fractured across, probably 
during the operation of skinning the specimen. Posterior to these parts 
in this duplicated structure we find the somewhat aborted hinder portion 
of the ilium; the large ischiadic foramen, which is complete, and the 
ischium, likewise complete. The pubic style, however, somewhat broad- 
ened, has fused throughout its entire length with the ischium of the pelvis 
below it, the anterior half of the line of fusion being distinctly indicated 
by a little ridge. Further than this the specimen offers nothing; but as 
it stands it is of considerable interest teratologically, while, as in nearly 
all of these cases, the most important parts have been thrown away. For 
instance, a careful description of the origin and insertion of the muscles 
in such a case as this would be a valuable contribution to our at present 
meager information on such points. This is likewise true of an even more 
important matter — the distribution of the added nerves, arteries, and 
veins in these structures, and the general physiology of the hmb. On such 
points as these our literature and information is almost a blank record. 

When a taxidermist gets such material, he considers it a wonderful 
departure from the ordinary, and that the chief thing to be preserved is the 
skinned specimen showing the supernumerary limb; on the other hand, a 
one-sided ornithotomist rarely sees anything beyond the necessity of saving 
the skeleton of the specimen. The science of teratology demands more 
than this, and we should in the future see well to it that these demands 
are met.— R. W. SHureipt, Washington, D. C. 


Notes from St. Marks, Fla. Pelidna a. sakhalina. Rerp-BAcKED 
SaNnpDPIPER.— On May 19, 1919, about twenty of these birds were seen on 
the sand-flats back of our light-house. The summer plumage seemed 
complete, a broad, intensely black belly-patch standing out in contrast to 
the enclosing white as a piece of heavy plush. On May 26, a week later, 
another bunch of about the same number were seen on some flats, none of 
which showed more than streaks of black. No solid patch. 

Squatarola squatarola. BuackK-BELLIED PLOVER — May 19, 1919, 


- 


Me est xNT General Notes. 587 


two birds were seen near the lighthouse in brilliant summer attire. The 
back checkered black and white and a full black “ chest protector.’’ May 
26 three birds were seen flying at the same locality, but exact condition of 
moult could not be determined. 

Ereunetes mauri. WersTERN Sanpprper.— About twenty small 
“peeps”? were noted about the lighthouse June 11, 1919; of three col- 
lected two were E. pusillus, the other ZH. mauri in summer plumage. On 
June 24, 1913, two specimens of H. mauri were taken eight miles west of 
the lighthouse. 

Himantopus mexicanus. BLAcK-NECKED StTILT.— Five of these birds 
were along the beach and on the flats near the lighthouse June 12, 1919. 

Phaéthon americanus. YELLOW-BILLED TRopPIc-BIRD.— On May 25, 
1919, one of the fishermen. reported ‘‘ The queerest looking bird I ever 
saw ’’ — about the size and color of a common small Gull (meaning the 
Common Tern), with a pointed tail about eighteen inches long. While 
the record is open to question, the occurrence, with such a description from 
a reliable person, seems worthy of recording.— JoHNn Wituiams, St. Marks, 
Fla. 


Further Notes from Leon Co., Florida.— The four papers of Mr. 
R. W. Williams (see ‘ Auk,’ 1904, p. 449; 1906, p. 153; 1907, p. 158; 
1914, p. 494), separates of which he has most courteously forwarded me, 
are the standard on the birds of Leon County. In these papers 192 species 
are recorded, the subsequent capture of the Florida Bob-white (‘Auk,’ 1916, 
p. 3829) making the total 193. 

It was my good fortune to visit Leon County again last spring from 
March 23-27, and Aprili-5. As usual I was for the most part on the shores 
of Lake Iamonia in the extreme northeastern corner of the county. It is 
this section that has been worked the least, and as might be expected 
further observations of interest were made, which are given below. The 
migration was late, no real flight taking place until April 3. As a matter of 
record dates are given wherever they are not mentioned by Williams, as a 
basis for future migration work. 

Gavia immer. Loon.— Two birds seen on a small open lake about 
four miles east of Tallahassee on April 5. ‘‘ Seen several times on the 
larger lakes.’ (Williams. ) 

194. Phalacrocorax auritus floridanus. Fiorina CorMORANT.— 
Two birds seen March 26 on Lake Iamonia. The natives know this bird 
well, which they call the Nigger Goose, and distinguish it from the Water- 
turkey, which they say is very scarce. They claim that the Cormorant 
breeds on some islands at the southern end of the lake, arriving the end of 
March and leaving about the middle of November. 

Lophodytes cucullatus. Hooprep Mrrcanser.— March 24 is the 
latest recorded date. 

Marila collaris. Rrnc-NeckED Ducx.— March 24 given as a record 
for the latest date. 


588 General Notes. [oot a 


Butorides v. virescens. GREEN Heron.— Arrived April 2. 

Meleagris gallopavo silvestris. Witp TurKkrey.— This noble bird 
still persists in the “gum ’’ swamps along Lake Iamonia. A roost of about 
fifteen birds on an island in the lake was one of our proudest possessions. 

Last autumn some strangers visited the island and were reported to have 
“cleaned out” the roost. A single hen was, however, detected on April 3 
in the old locality. 

Phlcotomus p. pileatus. PiLeatep Wooprrcker.— A pair of these 
fine birds was located on an island in the lake. The first I have ever found. 

195. Corvus ossifragus. FisH Crow.— Quite by chance I noticed 
recently for the first time that Mr. Williams does not list the Fish Crow. 

It is an abundant resident of the shores and islands of Lake Iamonia, though 
I have never seen it a quarter of a mile from the lake, nor around any of 
the other lakes in the county. 

Molothrus a. ater. Cowsirp.— Williams states that this bird has 
mysteriously disappeared from the county since 1893. I certainly had 
never been able to find it in recent years, so was correspondingly gratified 
to see a flock of five birds in an old pasture on the southern outskirts of 
Tallahassee on March 27. 

196. Melospiza 1. lincolni. Lincoin’s Sparrow.— The morning of 
March 26 was cloudy, with a strong east wind. Few birds were found in 
the early morning, so about 10 a.m. I started to wander aimlessly inland 
through the fields and pine woods. While ascending a hillside covered 
with broom grass, a sparrow was flushed from the ground, and flew with a 
quick, jerky flight to a bare little oak tree, where it perched absolutely 
motionless about fifteen feet away, and three feet from the ground. It was 
pure habit that made me glance at it through my prism glasses, and I was a 
surely astounded to get the finest view of a Lincoln’s Sparrow I ever had. 
None that I had previously seen acted in so accommodating a manner, 
suggesting a thrush or a Connecticut Warbler. Perhaps the balmy air of 
Florida had served to relax its almost preternatural shyness. For fully 
five minutes we faced each other motionless, but at the first cautious for- 
ward step of mine, away it darted, nor was I particularly surprised not to 
be able to find it again. Unfortunately the early morning had been so 
poor that I had left my collecting pistol behind. Let the incident point a 
moral and adorn a tale. There is no published record of the occurrence 
of this sparrow in Florida, that I can find. In answer to an inquiry of 
mine, Mr. Oberholser has most kindly written that the Biological Survey 
has no record either, but has a MS. record of one bird seen. 

Vireosylva olivacea. Rrp-rYED VirEo.— Two birds seen April 3. 

Protonotaria citrea. PrRoTHONOTARY WarBLER.— A _ single bird 
April 3. 

Vermivora c. celata. ORANGE-CROWNED WARBLER.— This species is a 
regular winter resident in small numbers. One seen March 26, and another 
April 3. It should, of course, be found much beyond this date. 

Dendroica d. dominica. YrLLOw-THROATED WARBLER.— Arrived 
April 2. 


pot | General Notes. 589 


Dendroica discolor. Pratrrm WarsBiLEeR.— Williams says he has no 
record except for August. As far as type of country and locality are con- 
cerned, I can think of no reason why this species should not be a common 
migrant in the county. One of the first bird notes that fell on my ears as 
I woke up at daylight on April 3 was the thin, wiry strain of the Prairie 
Warbler. Careful search revealed three birds around the house. There 
was another flight of warblers on April 5, when at least six were seen, five 
in a live oak tree at the same time.— LupLow Griscom, American Museum 
of Natural History, New York. 


Two Interesting Additions to the Collection of the Boston 
Society of Natural History. Gavia pacifica. Pacrric Loon.— An 
adult but unsexed specimen in full spring plumage of this very rare 
wanderer to New England was taken at Hampton Beach, New Hampshire, 
during May, 1910, by Mr. 8. Albert Shaw. Through the generosity of the 
collector this bird is now in the Society’s collection. 

Squatarola squatarola. Buack-BELLIED PLoveErR.— Mr. John B. 
Paine of Weston, Massachusetts, has very kindly presented to the Society 
an unsexed immature Black-bellied Plover showing no external trace of 
the hind toe on either foot. It was taken at Chatham, Massachusetts, 
August 27, 1913. 

It is an exceptionally large specimen, having the following measurements: 
wing, 104; culmen, 15.5; tarsus, 25 mm.— W. Spraaue Brooks, Boston 
Society of Natural History. 


Bird Notes from Collins, Erie Co., N. Y.— For several years I have 
had a small group of Cardinal Grosbeaks, not over four seen at one time, 
in exactly the same haunts yearly. They seem rather shy and elusive and 
I have not found the nest, but have seen one female and three males at a 
time. Others have seen at least three in different places two or three miles 
away. 

They are not proved as nesting in Erie County, but there is no doubt of 
it in my mind. The Nashville Warbler nests here only casually while of 
the Canadian, Black-throated Blue, and Junco, I have seen nests or newly 
fledged young, and in 1915 found a Solitary Vireo building. 

I note that the Cardinals eat the fruit of Celastrus scandens and Carpinus 
carolinensis in the fall. The Yellow Warblers use the very same bush or 
tree in which to build, and this year a pair took the old nest and relined 
it and used it. I never knew them to do this before. 

The Parula Warbler nests here, also the Magnolia, Hooded, Blackburnian, 
Chestnut-sided, Black-throated Green, Louisiana Water-Thrush, and a few 
Rough-winged Swallows. I do, not see it mentioned in food habits of the 
Chickadee and Downy Woodpecker that the larve of the bulbous galls of 
golden-rod are evidently quite an important part of their food. They drill 
persistently until they reach the larva, and in early spring I have seen a 
small flock working on these galls— ANNE E. Perkins, Collins, N.Y. 


590 General Notes. lous 


Additions to the ‘ Birds of Liberty County, Ga.’ — Owing to an 
unfortunate misunderstanding several species were omitted at the end of 
Mr. W. J. Erichson’s list in the July ‘ Auk.’ These are given below and 
follow in regular order at the end of the published list (p. 393).— (Eprror). 

38. Sitta pusilla. Brown-HEeapep NutTuatcu.— This confiding little 
bird inhabits open pine barrens where there is an abundance of dead trees 
and stubs. They generally select for a nesting site a pine stub from which 
the bark has not fallen, although, when handy, fence posts are not infre- 
quently used. Four nests of this bird were located, one containing two 
eggs which were subsequently destroyed, the other three containing five 
eggs each. The heights varied from twelve inches to seven feet. These 
nests were almost wholly composed of pine seed-wings, with the exception 
of a small amount of the silky fiber from the exterior of cocoons and some 
inner bark of different species of trees, particularly of the cypress. A large 
amount of the seed-wings is deposited in the nesting hole, and an enor- 
mous amount of energy is expended by the birds in the construction of 
their nests, as, from repeated observations, I have noted that these seed- 
Wings are carried to the hole one at a time. The Brown-headed Nuthatch 
breeds early, although but a single brood is raised. They are close sitters, 
and it is necessary at times to remove the sitting bird with the hand. 
Nesting dates for the county are March 19, March 27 (two nests), and 
April 3. 

39. Penthestes carolinensis carolinensis. CaroLIna CHICKADEE. 
— Simultaneous with the appearance of the down on the stalk of the 
cinnamon and royal ferns, which occurs during the middle of March, the 
Chickadee begins nest-building, for this material is used largely by the birds 
in lining their nests. As far as my observations go, the birds, in gathering 
the down, always begin at the top of the stalk and work downward. The 
green moss that collects on the trunks of certain species of hardwoods is 
also used to a considerable extent, being always placed in the nesting hole 
first, and upon it the down is deposited. Fur of the rabbit is frequently 
interwoven with the down, making a snug and warm home. In all of the 
nests examined there was a noticeable difference in the height of the wall 
on one side, the difference being in some instances an inch and a half. On 
leaving the nest the birds cover the eggs with this flap by bending it down. 
I have yet to find a nest of this species containing eggs which was not 
covered during the owner’s absence. 

The Carolina Chickadee’s choice of nesting sites is a small, rotten hard- 
wood stump in low, swampy land, although fence posts near dwellings are 
not infrequently selected. According to my observations this species 
does not always excavate a hole for itself, deserted holes of the Downy 
and other woodpeckers and natural cavities in trees being often used. 

Nesting dates for the county are: April 3, five eggs; April 5, six eggs; 
April 12, four eggs; April 17, five eggs. Heights varied from four to 
twenty-two feet, the nest noted April 17 being at the latter height. All of 


M 


pease] General Notes. 591 


these nests were typical, and were located in low land in the immediate 
vicinity of Allenhurst. 

40. Polioptila czerulea ce#rulea. Buiue-Gray GNaTCATCHER. — 
The nest of the Blue-Gray Gnateatcher is among the handsomest speci- 
mens of bird architecture. No other species of bird nesting in the south, 
not even excepting the Hummingbird, constructs a home of such exquisite 
proportions and beautiful workmanship. This species is locally distributed 
in the county, being confined principally to heavily timbered swamps, and 
as a rule nests at considerable heights. On May 3, after long search, 
I located a nest in a large gum growing in water and in the center of a dense 
swamp near Allenhurst. It was placed at a height of thirty-two feet, and 
contained five fresh eggs. Another nest, noted June 22, twenty-three feet 
high in an ash tree on the edge of the same swamp, contained four appar- 
ently heavily incubated eggs. Both nests were saddled on horizontal 
limbs, and were composed of fine, hair-like rootlets and dried grasses inter- 
woven with plant down, lined with small feathers. They were deeply 
cupped, shaped like a high cone, and had the entire exterior ornamented 
with lichens. 

41. Sialia sialis sialis. Biursirp.— The Bluebird is decidedly a 
woodland species throughout the county, and is only occasionally seen 
about populated places, at least during the breeding season. The many 
burnt-out districts and cut-over lands, in which are numerous stumps and 
dead trees, afford the bird ideal nesting sites. As a result of these favor- 
able conditions, Bluebirds are abundant in the county. The birds begin 
nesting early, as I have noted full sets of eggs on April 2. Other dates are 
April 17, four fresh eggs; April 25, four well-feathered young; May 1, four 
fresh eggs, and May 18, five eggs. Four eggs comprise the usual clutch, 
although sets of five are not rare. I have found the nest of this species 
placed in a slight depression on top of a low stump, although it is rare that 
deviations from the birds’ habit of nesting in holes in stumps excavated by 
woodpeckers are noted. The nests examined by me were constructed 
entirely of grasses and rootlets, lined with a few feathers, the material 
evidently having been hurriedly placed in the hole selected. These nests 
were in deserted woodpecker holes at heights varying from three to ten 
feet.— W. J. Ertcuson, Savannah, Ga. 


Data on the Age of Birds. November 8, 1919, will mark the twentieth 
anniversary of the formal opening of the New York Zoological Park. In 
an article in the ‘ Zoological Society Bulletin’ for May, 1919, on ‘ Our 
Oldest Specimens,’ Raymond L. Ditmars states (p. 61), ‘‘ No specimen of 
the bird collection has survived the Park’s opening day, although there is 
a Grifton Vulture living in the collection that has been on exhibition nearly 
seventeen years, and several of our pelicans have been with us for a period 
slightly over sixteen years.’’ In this connection it is interesting to recall 
an article ‘On the Comparative Ages to which Birds Live,’ by J. H. Gurney, 


592 General Notes. lies 


which appeared in ‘The Ibis’ for January, 1899, and was reprinted in 
‘The Osprey’ for June of the same year. This article contained data on 
the longevity of 75 species, more than two-thirds of which exceeded 20 years, 
and ten of which reached the age of 50 years or more. The oldest birds 
mentioned in the list (omitting doubtful records) were a Sulphur-crested 
Cockatoo and a Domestic Goose, each of which attained the age of 80 years. 
Only five North American species were included in Gurney’s list, and appar- 
ently data on the ages of our native birds are still very meager.— T. 8. 
Patmer, Washington, D.C. 


fax 


Ee 55 con ot Recent Literature. 093 


RECENT LITERATURE. 


Bent’s ‘ Life Histories of North American Diving Birds.’ 1— For 
almost ten years Mr Bent has been engaged in gathering materials for a 
work on the life histories of North American birds, under the auspices of the 
Smithsonian Institution. It was the general impression, and the author’s 
intention at the outset, that the splendid work that the late Major Bendire 
left unfinished would be carried on to completion. It comes therefore as 
a distinct surprise to those who were looking forward to another of the 
portly quartos, on the lines of the two that Bendire published, to find in its 
stead a modest octavo volume. 

Even a cursory examination of the work, however, demonstrates that 
the change of plan was advisable. The smaller volume is much more 
easily handled and therefore more practical and generally useful, while the 
half-tone illustrations with which it abounds are better adapted to the 
smaller size. Indeed, the only point in which the quarto volume had any 
advantage was in portraying the eggs, which have, of course, to be of 
natural size, and appear somewhat crowded on the smaller plates. Further- 
more, as we compare the works of Bent and Bendire we realize at once that 
the interval of twenty-five years that has passed since the last volume of 
the latter appeared has made it desirable that the life histories there pre- 
sented be rewritten, in the light of present-day information, so that an 
entirely new work on a new plan is inevitable. 

As we read Mr. Bent’s pages we fail to see how his plan could have been 
improved upon. He divides his subject matter into two main sections, 
‘Habits’ and ‘ Distribution,’ the former with the subheadings: courtship, 
nesting, eggs, young, plumage, food, behavior, winter, and an introduc- 
tory paragraph that might well be termed habitat; while under the second 
heading come: breeding range, winter range, spring migration, fall migra- 
tion, casual records, and egg dates. Mr. Bent has had the cooperation of 
about 150 ornithologists in gathering the material upon which his life 
histories are based, and he has not hesitated also to draw upon the most 
reliable published accounts when first-hand information was not obtainable. 
With the card index of the U. 8. Biological Survey at his disposal he was 
able to consult practically every work on North American birds, and due 
credit is given for every quotation, but we should much prefer foot notes 
to the method so common among university biologists, and which Mr. 
Bent has adopted, of citing the year of publication after the author’s name 
and leaving the reader to find the rest in the bibliography at the end of the 


1 Life Histories of North American Diving Birds | . Order Pygipodes. | By | Arthur 
Cleveland Bent | of Taunton, Massachusetts. | Washington, | Government Printing Office. | 
1919. | Smithsonian Institution. | United States National Museum. | Bulletin 107. | pp. 
i-ix + 1-245, pll. 1-55. 


594 Recent Literature. oar 


volume. This, however, is a mere matter of detail and does not affect the 
value of Mr. Bent’s life histories which we regard as the most accurate 
and well-balanced accounts that have yet appeared of the species treated — 
concise and easy to consult and at the same time very readable and enter- 
taining. 

Considering a few of the details, we find under migration, inclusive dates 
showing the general time of occurrence in a number of States in various 
parts of the country. As the author explains, the attempt has been made 
to show only the general movements of the species, more detail in a work of 
this sort being manifestly impossible. The breeding and winter ranges are 
sketched out with much more detail and have the advantage of having 
been read and revised by Mr. J. H. Fleming. In stating the measurements 
of eggs a rather novel method has been employed. The average of a large 
number of specimens is given first, followed by the dimensions of the four 
eggs which exhibit the extremes of length and breadth. One editorial 
practise which is adopted throughout the work, but with which we imagine 
the author had nothing to do, is that of printing the English names of the 
species entirely in lower case. This may be all right in general literature, 
where the practise originated, but in a work on birds there is no more reason 
for decapitalizing the bird names than those of countries or authors. Next 
thing we know another practise of the literary magazines, that of writing 
generic names with a small initial letter, will be forced upon us. 


The illustrations of Mr. Bent’s work deserve special mention. There: 


are 43 half-tone plates from photographs, usually two views to a plate, 
illustrating the nest, habitat, and often the young or adult birds. Most 
of the photographs are published for the first time, but there is one view of a 
colony of Murres which appeared previously in ‘The Auk’ for 1917. In 
the latter place it is said to have been taken on Outer Island, Canadian 
Labrador, while now the locality is given as Cape Whittle, Quebee. Both 
happen to be correct, and those who think that bird nomenclature is the 
only kind that is subject to change and deplore the fact, may take heart. 
There are also 12 excellent plates of eggs in colors, one or more eggs of each 
species being shown, except the Great Auk, the egg of which forms the 
frontispiece to the volume. These are photographs of the eggs them- 


selves reproduced by the three color process and are wonderful examples. 


of this kind of illustration. Their appearance could, however, have 
been much improved by arranging all the figures in the same position, 
instead of vertical, horizontal, right side up and upside down, as has 
been done. 

As the title of the work shows, this volume covers only the Grebes, 
Loons, and Auks — thirty-six species and subspecies in all. Anyone 
familiar with the meager accounts that we have heretofore had of many 


of these species and the remoteness of their breeding areas will appreciate: 


the magnitude of Mr. Bent’s task in preparing such adequate sketches as he 
has presented and will realize that he and his assistant, Mr. F. Seymour 


Hersey, have had to go far afield to gather the necessary material, while the: 


Vol. one | 
1919 


Recent Literature. 0990 
aid of numerous explorers of the far north has had to be sought to secure the 
series of photographs which has been here reproduced. Messrs. Mac- 
Millan and Ekblaw, of the American Museum’s Crocker Land Expedition, 
were especially generous in this connection. 

We have no doubt that while gathering the material presented in this 
volume Mr. Bent has also secured the bulk of the information necessary 
for the treatment. of many other groups, and we trust that other ‘ Life 
Histories’ will follow at frequent intervals. 

It is obviously the intention of the U. 8. National Museum authorities 
to issue each set of ‘ Life Histories’ as a separate work, since there is no 
general title and nothing to indicate that other parts will appear, except 
an incidental reference by the author to “‘ subsequent parts ”’ in the intro- 
duction. 

Just as Bendire’s work was a decided improvement upon the unfinished 
work of Brewer (1857), so Bent has made a great advance over Bendire, and 
his ‘ Life Histories’ will, we feel, be for many years the authoritative work 
on the subject, forming an admirable parallel series to the technical sys- 
tematic volumes of Ridgway’s ‘ Birds of North and Middle America.’ 

Let all ornithologists read carefully the last part of Mr. Bent’s introduc- 
tion, and if they have any information on any of the remaining species of 
water birds that may be of assistance to him, let them send it on at once. 
And let the author make all speed with his remaining parts. Two works 
of the kind have been left unfinished, but on the plan he has adopted and 
with the cooperation that is offered him, he should easily bring these life 
histories to a completion and establish another milestone in these progress 
of American ornithology.— W. 8S. 


Ridgway’s ‘ The Birds of North and Middle America,’ Part VIII.'— 
This long expected part of Mr. Ridgway’s great work has at last appeared, 
having been long held up by war conditions. It is entirely devoted to a 
consideration of the Charadriiformes or Plover-like birds, in which group 


1 The Birds | of | North and Middle America: | A Descriptive Catalogue | of the | Higher 
Groups, Genera, Species, and Subspecies of Birds | Known to Occur in North America, 
from the | Arctic Lands to the Isthmus of Panama, | the West Indies and Other Islands| 
of the Caribbean Sea, and the | Galapagos Archipelago. | By | Robert Ridgway, | Curator, 
Division of Birds. | Part VIII.| 


Family Jacanidee — The Jacanas. Family Phalaropodide — The Phalaropes. 
Family (Edicnemide — The Thick-knees. Family Recurvirostridae — The Avocets and 
Stilts. 


Family Hematopodide — The Oyster- Family Rynchopidee — The Skimmers. 
catchers. 


Family Arenariide — The Turnstones. Family Sternidee — The Terns. 

Family Aphrizide — The Surf Birds. Family Larid# — The Gulls. 
Family Charadriide — The Plovers. Family Stercorariidse — The Skuas. 

Family Scolopacide — The Snipes. Family Alcida — The Auks. | 


Washington: | Government Printing Office. | 1919: | pp. i-xvi-1-852, pll. i-xxxiv. 
(reported as published June, 1919, but not received until September 4). 


596 Recent Literature. [our 


are included the Gulls, Terns, Skimmers, Skuas, and Auks. The method 
of treatment follows closely that of the previous volumes and the high 
standard there set is well maintained. As the birds here considered break 
up less easily into geographical races, there are fewer new forms proposed 
than in the preceding volumes, but numerous changes in nomenclature are 
adopted and a number of new genera are accepted. The numerous new 
genera and subspecies proposed by Mr. Gregory M. Mathews in his ‘ Birds 
of Australia’ are considered, but only a few are accepted, which is gratify- 
ing to those who, like the reviewer, have felt that Mr. Mathews had gone 
entirely too far. Mr. Ridgway is not influenced by prejudice in such 
questions, but gives to each case a fair and unbiased consideration. 

The only new forms proposed in the present volume are Pagolla wilsonia 
beldingt (p. 112), Lower California; P. w. cinnamomina (p. 113), Sabanilla, 
Colombia; and Sterna anetheta nelsoni (p. 514), Guerrero, Mexico; while one 
new genus, Neoglottis (p. 329), is proposed for the Yellow-legs. Other 
forms admitted which are additional to those in the A. O. U. ‘Check-List’ 
are: Numentus americanus occidentalis (Woodhouse), Sternula antillarum 
brownt Mearns, Larus thayeri Brooks, and Uria ringvia Brinn. Owing 
to the subdivision of the species into several races, Jacana spinosa of the 
“Check-List’ becomes J. s. gymnostoma (Wagl.), while Sterna anetheta 
becomes S. a. recognita Mathews, Pisobia aurita becomes P. acuminata, 
following Mathews’ explanation of the error in identification of the plate 
upon which the name was based, and Calidris leucophwa becomes C. alba 
(ef. Auk, 1912 p. 205), while Pisobia damacensis becomes P. subminuta 
(Middend.), and Hematopus fraseri is regarded as a subspecies of H. 
palliatus. 

Following the fixation of Linnzean types by the International Commission, 
Charadrius is shifted from the Golden Plovers to the “‘ Ring-necks,” the 
former becoming Pluvialis, while T'ringa is now the generic name of the 
Solitary Sandpiper, the Knot being known as Canutus. On account of 
preoccupation, Ochthodromus becomes Pagolla, Macrorhamphus becomes 
Limnodromus. Plautus is found to date from Gunnerus, 1761, by whom it 
was used for the Little Auk, so that it replaces Alle, while the Great Auk 
becomes Pinguinus, showing that even extinct birds are not safe from the 
operations of the laws of nomenclature. 

The following subgenera of the ‘Check-List’ are elevated to generic rank: 
Endomychura, Ciceronia, Alcella, Hydroprogne, Thalasseus, and Sternula, 
while Larus is broken up into Larus, Chroicocephalus, Hydrocoleus, and 
Blasipus; and Numenius, into Numenius, Pheopus, and Mesoscolopaz, 
while Vetola is used for the Godwits other than L. limosa, and Coprotheres 
for the Pomarine Jeger. 

According to the main text of the work, Heteroscelus is regarded as not 
invalidated by the earlier Heteroscelis and takes the place of Heteractitis, 
but on another page Chlidonia is allowed to invalidate Chlidonias Rafi- 
nesque, which hardly seems to be a consistent application of the rules. 
It is but fair to mention, however, that Mr. Ridgway states in the addenda 


Appice te = bg Om NS ee EG 


tn Se et 


Sas ee a er 


Vol. ae | 
1919 


Recent Literature. 597 
that he rejects Chlidonias because published in a newspaper, but at the 
same time names are accepted from foreign journals which difter little if 
at all in character from that in which Rafinesque published his genus. 

Among forms rejected by Mr. Ridgway we notice Squatarola squatarola 
cynosure Thayer and Bangs, while our two species of Yellowlegs which Dr. 
Oberholser, following Mathews, regards as belonging to two different 
genera Mr. Ridgway finds to be strictly congeneric. It is very gratifying 
to have his fair and unbiased opinion on this and a number of other recently 
proposed changes which will have to be decided some day by the A. O. U. 
Committee. 

We are pleased to learn from the preface that work is already in progress 
on Part IX, which will include the Cranes, Gallinaceous Birds, and Birds 
of Prey, leaving the remaining families for Part X. We sincerely hope 
that Mr. Ridgway will be able to complete these two volumes in the near 
future and round out what will for a long time rank as the most import- 
ant systematic work on American birds.— W. 8. 


Witherby’s ‘ A Practical Handbook of British Birds.’ — Two more 
parts of this excellent work} have appeared since our previous notice 
(Auk, 1919, p.432), covering the remainder of the Fringillide, the Alaudide, 
and most of the Motacillide. The standard set in the first part is admir- 
ably maintained and a vast amount of accurate information is presented 
in a concise form. The colored plates, which are most attractively printed, 
represent the heads of Buntings and Wagtails and a group of Crossbills 
with nest and young, while the uncolored halftone plates of Redpolls and of 
young Larks and Pipits are exceedingly well drawn, to show the differences 
in plumage, while the printing gives a remarkably soft effect. The Redpoll 
plate may be consulted with profit by American bird students who desire 
to become better acquainted with the appearance of the several boreal 
forms which occasionally visit our northern States in winter. 

We note that Mr. Witherby rejects Kleinschmidt’s name hostilis for the 
British House Sparrow, which is the same race as that which we have in 
America. The only way in which it was claimed that it differed from the 
continental race was in its smaller size, but Mr. Witherby finds that the 
average difference in length of wing is less than 3 mm. and that of 90 
individuals only 17 could be certainly distinguished by their size. Dr. 
Oberholser (Auk, 1917, p. 329) accepted Kleinschmidt’s name without 
presenting any corroborative evidence, but in view of Mr. Witherby’s 
investigations we may safely retain domesticus as the name of our “‘ English 
Sparrow.” — W. 8S. 


1A Practical Handbook of British Birds, Edited by H. F. Witherby. Part 2 (pp. 68-128), 
April 30, and Part 3 (pp. 129-208), June 18, 1919. Price 4s. net per part. In 18 parts. 
Witherby & Co., 326 High Holborn, W. C. I., London. 


598 Recent Literature. [oct 


Roberts on Minnesota Birds.— Dr. Roberts has contributed a valu- 
able paper! to the Report of the State Game and Fish Commission, on 
‘The Water Birds of Minnesota, Past and Present.’ It is replete with remi- 
niscences of the water-bird life of earlier years gathered from Dr. Roberts’ 
personal experiences, which date back to 1875, and those of others. The 
style of treatmentof the several families varies somewhat, the Grebes, Ducks, 
Gulls, etc., being considered in groups, while in the ease of the shore-birds 
each species is discussed separately. The status of the rarer species is 
carefully considered and much important detailed information is made 
available to the ornithologist, while the main object of the paper — to 
present information of interest and value to the general public and the— 
sportsman in particular —is not lost sight of. 

Another recent publication 2 of Dr. Roberts is entitled ‘A Review of the 
Ornithology of Minnesota’ and is intended as an aid to students in the 
University of Minnesota and to others interested in the study of the birds 
of the State. There is an annotated list of species occurring regularly in 
Minnesota, another of the rare or accidental species, as well as of the intro- 
duced, unsettled, and extirpated species, a discussion on vanishing birds, 
and a hypothetical list of birds recorded from Minnesota, but of which no 
local specimens have been preserved. Other chapters treat of bird laws, 
wild life refuges, and an abridged bibliography of Minnesota ornithology. 
The pamphlet is full of excellent half-tone illustrations from photographs 
by the author, whose ability as a bird photographer is well known. 

A faunal map of the State is also included, in which we find it divided into 
Canadian, Alleghanian, ‘‘ Pseudo-Campestrian,”’ and ‘‘ Pseudo-Carolinian.”’ 
While we realize the difficulty of drawing satisfactory faunal boundaries 
where several zones converge, we fail to see the advantage of coining new 
names. It would seem better to adhere to the nomenclature of the Bio- 
logical Survey or other recognized authority and to explain in annotations 
that the zones as they occur in the region under discussion are dilute, not 
typical, ete. Dr. Roberts is, however, by no means alone in the practise 
that he has adopted.— W. S. 


Second Ten Year Index to the Condor.*— The Cooper Ornithological 
Club has published as Pacifie Coast Avifauna, No. 13, a second ten-year 
index to ‘ The Condor,’ covering the years 1909-1918, by J. R. Pemberton. 


1 Water Birds of Minnesota, Past and Present. By Thomas S. Roberts, M. D., Curator 
Zoological Museum, University of Minnesota. Extracted from the Biennial Report of 
the State Game and Fish Commission of Minnesota, for the Biennial Period Ending July 
31, 1918. pp. 56-91. 

*A Review of the Ornithology of Minnesota. By Thomas Sadler Roberts, M. D. 
Professor of Ornithology and Curator of the Zoological Museum in the University of Minne- 
sota. Research Publications of the University of Minnesota. Vol. VIT1, No. 2. May, 
1919. pp. 1-100. Addendum and Introduction. Price 25 cents. 

3 Second Ten Year Index to the Condor, Volumes XI-XX, 1909-1918. By J. R. Pember- 
ton. Pacific Coast Avifauna, Number 13. Hollywood, California. August 15, 1919. 
pp. 1-92. Cooper Ornithological Club. 


Vol. SioT | 
1919 


Recent Literature. 599 
It follows essentially the plan of the ‘Auk’ index, except that the subhead- 
ings under which the references are arranged are not italicized, while the 
volumes are indicated by number instead of year and are not printed in 
heavy-faced type. The use of italic would, we think, have made it easier 
for the eye to catch the desired reference, but that is a minor point. The 
compiler has done his work well and is to be congratulated upon the com- 
pletion of a thankless task, but one that will save time and trouble for 
hundreds of others who may have occasion in the future to consult these 
volumes of ‘The Condor.’ The value of such an index as Mr. Pemberton 
has prepared is emphasized in a summary of such publications, which 
appears in ‘ Notes and News’ of the present issue of ‘ The Auk.’ 

Besides the Index proper there is a list of persons mentioned in the ‘ First 
Ten-Year Index,’ but whose names were not there given in full. The miss- 
ing data have now been supplied largely by Dr. T. S. Palmer and the names 
now appear in complete form. Such corrected lists almost invariably con- 
tain new errors, and we notice in this instance that Dr. W. L. Ralph’s name 
appears as ‘ Rolph,’ while that of Mr. R. P. Sharples has an additional ‘s.’ 
Both of these were correctly spelled in the first index. It goes without 
saying that everyone who possesses a file of ‘The Condor’ must have this 
volume.— W. 8. 


Riley on New Birds from Celebes and Java.'— A further study of the 
collection of Celebes birds made recently by Mr. H. C. Raven (cf. Auk, 
1919, p. 302) has revealed five apparently unnamed forms from that island 
and one from Java. These are described by Mr. Riley as follows: from 
Java, Excalfactoria chinensis palmeri (p. 93); from Celebes, Anas super- 
ciliosa percna (p. 93), Megalurus celebensis (p. 94), Dicruropsis montana (p. 
94), Pachycephala pluviosa (p. 95), and Zosterops atrifrons (p. 95).— W. 8. 


Chubb on South American Birds.— The second instalment of Mr. 
Chubb’s notes on South American collections in the British Museum ? 
covers all the families from the Grebes to the Raptores of Sharpe’s ‘ Hand 
List.’ It consists mainly of citation of specimens of interest either from 
locality or condition of plumage, but one form is described as new Oreophilus 
ruficollis simonsi (p. 262) from Challapata, Bolivia.— W. 8. 


Lonnberg on Hybrid Gulls.— In a recent paper * Dr. Lonnberg de- 
scribes some Hybrid Gulls which were bred in the Zoological Garden at 
Skanses, Sweden, from the crossing of a male Larus fuscus and a female 


1 Six New Birds from Celebes and Java. By J.H. Riley. Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington, 
Vol. 32, pp. 93-96, May 20, 1919. 

2 Notes on Collections of Birds in the British Museum, from Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, and 
Argentina. Part II. Podicipediformes — Accipitriformes. By Charles Chubb. The 
Ibis, April, 1919, pp. 256-290. 

3 Hybrid Gulls. By Einar Lonnberg. With three ptates and six figures in the text. Archiv. 
for Zoologik. Svenska Vetenskapsakad. Band 12, No.7. pp. 1-22. 1919. 


600 Recent Literature. [Gut 


L. leucopterus and also some hybrids between L. marinus and L. glaucus 
(=hyperboreus) reared at the Zoological Garden at Copenhagen. 

Three plates in color of the former hybrids are given, showing them in 
several stages of plumage, from juvenal to adult, while there are also dia- 
grams of the coloration of the wing tips. In connection with the second 
hybrid, Mr. H. Winge is quoted as suspecting a hybrid origin for the rare 
Larus nelsoni, and there is a description of a supposed wild hybrid L. 
marinus x L. glaucus taken at Upernavik, Greenland. J 

This paper should be consulted by students of the Larid, as it may throw 
light upon some of the still unsettled problems regarding the relationship of 


1 


certain species of gulls— W. 8S. 


Recent Papers by Oberholser.— Six papers by Dr. Oberholser have 
recently appearedin the‘ Proceedings of the U.S. National Museum.’ One 
of these! is a review of the species of the genus Nannus, comprising our 
Winter Wren and the common Wren of Europe and their allies. Dr. Ober- 
holser recognizes no less than thirty-six forms of these birds, all of which he 
regards as subspecies of N. troglodytes. The five American species and 
subspecies of the A. O. U. ‘Check-List’ will therefore appear as Nannus 
troglodytes hiemalis, ete., if his views are to be followed. Furthermore, his 
studies of the Alaskan birds leads him to recognize three new forms: N. t. 
kiskensis (p. 228) from Kiska Island, N. t. tanagensis (p. 230), Tanaga Island, 
and N. t. petrophilus (p. 232), Unalaska Island. 

The birds of the Tambelan Islands, China Sea? form the subject of 
another paper based upon collections of Dr. W. L. Abbott. Twenty-two 
species are listed, of which Orthorhamphus magnirostris scommophorus (p. 
133) is described as new. : 

Dr. Abbott’s collections from Pulo Taya, south eastern Sumatra, are also 
described by Dr. Oberholser® ten species being listed, of which Lamprocorax 
panayensis richmondi (p. 272) and Cinnyris ornata microleuca (p. 273) are 
new. 

In a revision of the races of the White-collared Kingfisher, Sawropatis 
chloris,! Dr. Oberholser recognizes twenty-four subspecies, the new ones 
being: S. c. palmeri (p. 369), Mt. Salak, Java; S.c. azela (p. 377), Engano 
Island, W. Sumatra; S. c. chloroptera (p. 379), Simalur Island; S. c. 
amphiryta (p. 382), Nias Island; and S. c. hyperpontia (p. 386), Vate Island, 
New Hebrides. 


1 Notes on the Wrens of the Genus Nannus Billberg. By Harry C. Oberholser. Proc. 
U.S. National Museum, Vol. 55, pp. 223-236. 1919. 

2 The Birds of the Tambelan Islands, South China Sea. By Harry C.Oberholser. Ibid., 
pp. 129-143. 

3 Notes on Birds Collected by Dr. W. L. Abbott on Pulo Taya, Berhala Strait, South- 
eastern Sumatra. By Harry C. Oberholser. Ibid., pp. 267-274. 

4A Revision of the Subspecies of the White-collared Kingfisher, Sauropatis chloris 
(Boddex). By Harry C. Oberholser. Ibid., pp. 351-395. 


: 
* 
% 
¥ 
k 


ea | Recent Literature. 601 


A study of a series of the Nicobar Megapode induces Dr Oberholser ! 
to recognize two races, Megapodius nicobariensis abbotti (p.400) from Little 
Nicobar being described as new. It occurs also on Great Nicobar, while the 
typical form is restricted to the middle and northern islands of the group. 

Dr. Abbott’s second collection from Simalur Island, Sumatra, consists 
of 38 species, which are listed by Dr. Oberholser,? Hypotenidia striata 
reliqua (p. 476) being the only novelty. 

None of the recent papers from the National Museum ‘ Proceedings’ are 
dated except with the year, which is likely to cause much trouble in the 
future. If it was impracticable during war times to print the date on the 
separates, it surely could have been added with a rubber stamp before they 
were mailed. So much time is wasted today in ascertaining the actual 
dates of publication of old works that it is disheartening to find one of our 
leading scientific institutions reverting to this careless practice.— W. 8. 


Captain S. A. White’s Explorations in Australia.* — Captain 
White, who has contributed so many valuable articles to ‘The Emu’ 
and other Australian scientific journals, has also published two little book- 
lets, reprinted from ‘ The Register’ and illustrated by many half-tones 
from photographs, which have just come to our attention. 

One is entitled ‘The Gawler Range. An Ornithological Expedition ’ 
and the other ‘ Ooldea on the East-West Railway, On the Flooded Murray 
River and Other Sketches.’4 They are most interesting accounts of 
travel in the wilds of the Australian continent and are replete with obser- 
vations on bird life-— W. 8. 


Bangs and Penard’s ‘ Critical Bird Notes.’*>— In the process of their 
studies of the Lafresnaye Collection of birds recently presented by the 
Boston Society of Natural History to the Museum of Comparative Zoology, 
Messrs. Bangs and Penard have discovered the necessity for various 
changes in names, recognition of new races, etc., which are presented in 
the present paper in advance of their general report on the Lafresnaye col- 
lection. The new forms described are: Herpetotheres cachinnans queri- 
bundus (p. 23), Pernambuco, Brazil; Hupsittula astec vicinalis (p. 24), 
Tamaulipas, Mexico; Synallaxis brachyurus chapmani (p. 25), Jiminez; 
Colombia; Dendrocincla lafresnayei christiani (p. 25), Pavas, Colombia, 


1 The Races of the Nicobar Megapode, Megapodius nicobariensis Blyth. By Harry C. 
Oberholser. Ibid., pp. 399-402. 

2 Notes on Dr. W. L. Abbott’s Second Collection of Birds from Simalur Island, Western 
Sumatra. By Harry C. Oberholser. Ibid., pp. 473-498. 

3 The Gawler Ranges. An Ornithological Expedition. By Capt. S. A. White. Ade- 
laide. 1913. pp. 1-58. 

4 Ooldea, on the East-West Railway, On the Flooded Murray River and Other Sketches. 
By Capt. S. A. White. Reprinted from The Register. pp. 1-88. 

5 Some Critical Notes on Birds. By Outram Bangs and Thomas E. Penard. Bull. 
Museum Comp. Zool., Vol. LXIII, No.2. June, 1919. pp. 21-40. 


602 Recent Literature. lau 


Picolaptes affinis lignicida (p. 26), Tamaulipas, Mexico; Saltator striati- 
pictus furax (p. 32), W. Costa Rica, and S. s. speratus (p. 33), Pearl Islands, 
Panama, and Cissilopha sanblasiana nelsoni (p. 40), Colima, Mexico. Tana- 
gra lauta (p. 35) is proposed for the well-known “ Huphonia hirundinacea” 
auct., which proved not to be Lesson’s bird, and T. l. proba (p. 35) is pro- 
posed for 7’. gnatho auct. nec Licht., while the new generic name Cnemo- 
scopus (p. 38) is established for Arremon rubrirostris Lafr. 

Mr. Bangs! has also recently separated the Philippine Striated Grass 
Warbler as a new form, Megalurus palustris forbesi (p. 61).— W.S. 


Cassinia for 1918.2— This publication of the Delaware Valley Orni- 
thological Club contains an article on the birthplace of John Cassin by 
F. H. Shelton, with a half-tone illustration of the Cassin homestead, while 
some additional notes regarding the life of the ornithologist are presented, 
showing that his interest in natural history, especially botany, had been 
well developed even during his school days. 

Extracts from an old manuscript journal of a Swedish missionary, 
Andreas Hesselius, compiled some years ago by Charles J. Pennock, form the 
other leading article and give observations on bird life, ete., in the vicinity 
of Wilmington, Del., in 1711. This manuscript is one of the very earliest 
contributions to the ornithology of the Delaware Valley. 

The usual migration report is presented as well as the Abstract of Pro- 
ceedings and Bibliography. The Club had twenty-five of its members 
in the national service and was forced by war conditions to cancel some of 
its meetings, but it managed to keep up its regular activities, and is now in a 
more prosperous condition than before.— W. 8. 


Gladstone’s ‘Birds and the War.’*— Mr. Gladstone’s aim in this 
little book is to present such information as he was able to gather during 
the four years of the European War regarding its effect upon and relation 
to bird life. The subject is far more complicated than one would at first 
imagine, as can be seen from a glance at the chapter headings of the work. 
These are grouped under four titles: (1) Utility of Birds, as messengers, 
crop protectors and food; (2) Suffering of Birds in the War, captive birds, 
sea birds and effect of air craft and air raids; (3) Behaviour of Birds in the 
War Zone; (4) Effect of the War on Birds, migration and change of habits. 

As we glance through the pages of this interesting little volume we learn 
that during some engagements as many as a thousand homing pigeons were 
used by the British to carry messages and that the birds frequently flew 


1A New Striated Grass Warbler from the Philippines. By Outram Bangs. Proc. New 
England Zool. Club. . Vol. VII, pp. 5-6. June 6, 1919. 

2Cassinia. A Bird Annual. Proceedings of the Delaware Valley Ornithological Club. 
1918 [April, 1919], pp. 1-51. Price 50 cents. 

’ Birds and the War. By HughS. Gladstone, M. A., F. R.S.E., F. Z.S., etc. Skeffing- 
ton & Son, Ltd., 34 Southampton Street, Strand, W. C. 2. London, 1919. 12 mo. pp. 
i-xviii-1-169. 17 half-tone plates. Price 5s. net. 


— 


oe Poe | Recent Literature. 603 


through ges clouds and barrage after all other means of communication had 
failed. Few, we imagine, realized the extent of the ‘ Pigeon Service’ or 
that the United States had a similar organization with which at least one 
ornithologist, Mr. F.C. Lincoln, of the Colorado Museum, was connected. 
Mr. Gladstone also describes the use of Canaries, which are much more 
sensitive to poison gases than man, as a means of detecting the presence of 
gas in tunnelling operations at the front, while singing Canaries were used 
extensively on ambulance trains to cheer up the wounded soldiers. The 
controversy between the farmers and the bird protective societies as to 
whether birds, especially pheasants, were of more value during war times 
as food or as crop protectors, was hotly waged and resulted in some tempo- 
rary modifications in the game regulations. 

Mr. Gladstone’s evidence is that air raids terrified some birds but not 
others, while sea birds that were at first frightened by the air planes soon 
became accustomed tothem. Neither of these factors seems to have caused 
any actual destruction of bird life, but the sinking of oil ships by the sub- 
marines was a source of real danger, and large numbers of ducks and other 
sea birds perished from their plumage becoming hopelessly caked with the 
oil, so that flight was impossible. On the actual battlefield in France the 
most reliable testimony is to the effect that the birds were but little a‘fected 
by the terrific upheaval going on around them, and returned again to nest 
in the most devastated spots. Of course local conditions affected them to 
some extent, but generally speaking they seemed indifferent to the noise of 
battle. Mr. Gladstone in this connection cites Charles Waterton to the 
effect that the noise of a gun is the one sound to which birds never become 
accustomed, a theory which the war has pretty well disproved. 

Upon migration and habits the war seems to have had little or no eect, 
although the destruction of large forest areas has, as in all cases of deforesta- 
tion, affected the presence or abundance of species dependent upon such 
a. for their existence. 

*, Gladstone has done a good work in collecting the spear ation pre- 
ee in this volume, which is not only an important record but a valuable 
contribution to bird behavior and an exceedingly interesting book for the 
general reader.— W. S. 


Mathews’ ‘The Birds of Australia.’!1— The latest part of Mr. 
Mathews’ sumptuous work concludes the fifth volume and also completes 
the treatment of the non-passerine birds, and the author takes this oppor- 
tunity to add several species omitted from various preceding parts as well 
as several appendices, ete. 

The part opens with the completion of the account of the Coucal, which 
includes a description of Polophilus phasianinus melvillensis (p. 391), and 
is followed by a consideration of that typically Australian group, the Lyre- 


1The Birds of Australia. By Gregory M. Mathews. Volume VII, Part V. July 10, 
1919. pp. 385-499. + i-xii (Introduction, etc., to Vol. V.]. 


604 Recent Literature. los 


birds. The biographical treatment is full and interesting, and the author 
continues to refer the Menura alberti to the separate genus Harriwhitea, 
which he recently established for it. 

Following this come plates with text of Globicera pacifica, Reinholdia 
reinholdi, Pterodroma inexpectata, to which by the way he refers Oestrelata 
fischeri [sic] Ridgway and 4. scalaris Brewster; Diomedia chionoptera 
and Psephotellus chrysoplerygius. 

These follow right after the Lyre-birds without any separate heading 
or anything to show the general reader that they do not belong to that 
family. Indeed, in the ‘Contents’ the Pigeon is so included, while all the 
others are listed under the genus Reinholdia! They could appropriately 
have been designated Appendix I. There is also a figure of a Cuckoo on 
the Pigeon plate to which we find no reference whatever, and stranger still 
a paragraph at the end of the text of the Parrot (Psephotellus) marked 
‘Addenda,’ which deals with the nomenclature of a genus of Weaver Finches, 
a family that will not be considered until one of the last parts of the work. 

We are forced to the opinion that a lot of supplementary material has 
been printed just as it came to hand, without proper editing or allocation, 
and this opinion is strengthened by a perusal of the other appendices. 
That designated ‘Appendix A,’ while it has no heading, is apparently a 
list of papers containing Mr. Mathews’ descriptions of new Australian 
birds and a list of extralimital genera, species and subspecies described 
by him. The first section of the latter consists of new genera proposed 
in ‘ The Birds of Australia,’ followed by another entitled ‘‘ Other Genera,” 
by which is apparently meant genera proposed in other works. There are 
four of these lists with the names arranged in the order in which they occur, 
but why they were not merged into one, with the names arranged alphabeti- 
cally, we are at a loss to understand. 

‘ Appendix B’ is one of the most important contributions to ornithologi- 
eal bibliography that has appeared for some time, being a list of over 150 
important ornithological works, with exact dates of publication or refer- 
ences to sources where this information may be obtained. Mr. Mathews 
has, as is well known, devoted a great deal of time to working out the 
history of the publication of the older ornithological works and has here 
generously placed at the disposal of others the results of his labors. To 
make the list still more accurate, it was submitted to Dr. Charles W. 
Richmond for criticism and correction, but here again the lamentable 
lack of editorial supervision which characterizes this part of the work is 
again in evidence. For some reason, Dr. Richmond’s corrections and 
comments are not interpolated where they belong, but are printed all 
together as ‘ Addenda to Appendix B,’ so that unless one looks in both 
lists for every publication he is hable to get erroneous information. In 
view of the great demand for the information contained in this appendix 
and the comparatively few persons who will have access to it in its present 
location, we trust that Mr. Mathews may in the near future consider pub- 


Vol. ae td Recent Literature. 605 


1919 


lishing it in revised form in a single list as a number of ‘ The Austral Avian 
Record,’ or in some journal where it would be generally available.— W. S. 


Wetmore on Lead Poisoning in Waterfowl.'— This is a report of 
especial interest to gunners and gun clubs. The birds that are affected 
pick up shot about the shooting grounds, where a considerable amount has 
naturally accumulated. In one marsh in Utah it was estimated that 
75,000 shot gun shells are used each season, each of which contains about 
an ounce of shot, so that the accumulation is very great, and experimental 
sifting of the mud where the ducks fed discovered shot always present. 
Experiments on captive birds showed that six pellets of No. 6 shot were 
sufficient to cause the death of a Mallard. While magnesia sulphate acts 
as a cure there is apparently no way to check the poisoning, and attention 
of gunners is called to the lead poisoning so that the symptoms may be 
understood by persons finding birds so affected. The general results of 
this investigation have already been published in the Journal of the 
Washington Academy of Sciences, June 4, 1918.— W. S. 


French’s ‘The Passenger Pigeon in Pennsylvania.’ >— The title of 
this little book is slightly misleading, as fully half of the text is occupied 
with Indian and forest lore of Pennsylvania and accounts of the Passenger 
Pigeon in other parts of the United States, from Wilson, Audubon, Cooper, 
etc., as well as accounts of pigeons in general compiled from not very accu- 
rate sources. The portions devoted to the Passenger Pigeon in Pennsylva- 
nia are scattered through the volume, separated by chapters and paragraphs 
dealing with other topics, with a total lack of system or plan. They are 
of very unequal value, some from old pigeon hunters written in their 
declining years when memory is not always to be trusted, others consisting 
of newspaper articles reprinted verbatim and open to the usual criticism 
that attaghes to such publications. 

The best chapter is that by Col. H. W. Shoemaker on ‘The Passenger 
Pigeon — Its Last Phase,’ in which the final disappearance of the species 
is sketched and the last alleged observations enumerated. Even here, 
however, no mention is made of the last specimens actually secured in the 
state. 

Some of the information contained in the book is absolutely erroneous, 
as for instance, the statement that two eggs constituted a clutch, when we 
have the testimony of reliable ornithologists from the time of Alexander 
Wilson down, that only one egg was laid. 


1 Lead Poisoning in Waterfowl. By Alexander Wetmore. Bulletin 793, U.S. Depart- 
ment of Agriculture. pp. 1-12. July 31, 1919. 

2 The Passenger Pigeon in Pennsylvania. Its Remarkable History, Habits and Extinc- 
tion, with Interesting Side Lights on the Folk and Forest Lore of the Alleghanian Region of 
the Old Keystone State. By John C. French. Altoona, Pa. 1919. pp. 1-257, numerous 
half-tone illustrations. For sale at the Franklin Bookshop, 920 Walnut St., Philadelphia. 
Price, $4.00. 


606 Recent Literature. [oot 


While Mr. French’s work contains much interesting reading, it cannot be 
considered in the same class as Mershon’s well-known work or even Col. 
Paxson’s little pamphlet, as an accurate account of the Passenger Pigeon. 

There are two valuable historical illustrations, one of a stool-pigeon 
basket and the other of a pair of pincers used for twisting the necks of the 
birds caught in the nets. The other plates are portraits of old pigeon 
hunters or others mentioned in the book.— W. 5. 


Economic Ornithology and Bird Protection.— The U.S. Depart- 
ment of Agriculture has issued the usual synopsis of the Game Laws for 
1919, compiled this year by G. A. Lawyer and F. L. Earnshaw,! while 
another pamphlet ? by the former author explains the present status of the 
Federal protection of migratory birds and the Canadian treaty. Another 
important treatise on this same subject is U. 8. Attorney, Francis M. 
Wilson’s brief in the court action against the Treaty in the St. Joseph 
Division of the western district of Missouri, a masterly summary of the 
arguments which convinced a confessedly antagonistic judge of the validity 
of the law. 

‘Bird Notes and News ”* and the annual report of the Royal Society for 
the protection of Birds are full of details of bird protection in England after 
the war. 

‘The Audubon Bulletin,’ winter 1918-1919 issue, is as usual one of the 
most attractive publications of its kind, well printed and well illustrated. 
The need of forest and game protection in southern Illinois is discussed by 
Robert Ridgway and shows both in text and illustrations his well known 
love of trees as well as birds. Other articles deal with the scenic beauty 
of the Mississippi, Theodore Roosevelt as a conservationist, the bird pro- 
tective laws of Illinois, ete. 

‘The Alabama Bird-Day Book’ abounds in good bird poems and inter- 
esting sketches suitable for school use compiled from various sources, while 
several of the Mumford colored plates of birds serve as illustrations. Few, 
if any, other States have publications so well suited to the purpose as this. 

The West Chester Bird Club of Pennsylvania, organized some years ago 
for local bird study under the leadership of Dr. C. E. Ehinger, has issued 
an attractive little pamphlet ® giving an account of its activities, with some 
very creditable original bird poems. 


1 Game Laws for 1919. By Geo. A. Lawyer and Frank L. Earnshaw. Farmers’ Bulletin 
1077, U. S. Department of Agriculture. August, 1919. pp. 1-80. 

2 Federal Protection of Migratory Birds. By George A. Lawyer. Separate from the 
Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture. No. 785, pp. 1-16. 

’ Bird Notes and News. Issued quarterly by the Royal Society for the Protection of 
Birds, 23 Queen Anne’s Gate, London, S. W. I., England. 

4 The Audubon Bulletin. Published by The Illinois Audubon Society, 1649 Otis Building, 
Chicago. 

5 Alabama Bird Day Book, 1919. Issued by the Department of Game and Fish, John 
H. Wallace, Commissioner. pp. 1-103. 

6 West Chester Bird Club, Historical Sketch, Summary of Year’s Work, 1918-1919, 
July 1, 1919. pp. 1-20. 


Vol. atc 
1919 


Recent Literature. 607 

‘California Fish and Game’! for April contains an article of the insec- 
tivorous habits of the Herring Gull, by A. C. Burrill, a convincing argument 
in favor of the bird, while in ‘ Fins, Feathers and Fur,’? Thaddeus Surber 
has an interesting paper on the Pine Co. Minnesota Game Refuge as a 
playground, and there is a remarkable photograph of Mallards at Crane 
Lake, Illinois. Taking the opposite view from that expressed in the 
‘Audubon Bulletin’ this journal unhesitatingly condemns the Crow and 
endorses the national crow shoot.— W.S. 


Report of the National Zoological Park.*— The second annual report 
of superintendent Ned Hollister shows a slight increase in the collections, 
notwithstanding the restrictions of war times: The birds include 190 
species, represented by 706 individuals in comparison with 182 species and 
683 individuals in 1917. Among the more notable acquisitions of the year 
were six Keas (Nestor notabilis) and eight Wekas or flightless Rails (Ocy- 
dromus) from South Island, New Zealand; a pair of Straw-necked Ibis 
(Carphibis spinicollis) from Australia; a pair of Thick-billed Parrots (Rhyn- 
chopsitta pachyrhyncha) from the Chiricahua Mountains, Arizona; and a 
Santo Domingo Parrot (Amazona ventralis). Forty-five birds were hatched 
during the year, including several American Coots. This is apparently the 
first record of the breeding of this species in captivity, at least in this 
country. Waterfowl (Anseriformes) constitute the largest group in the 
collection. Of the 40 species represented, two-thirds are North American. 
These birds are kept in an enclosure provided with a large pond, where they 
can be readily seen, and thus form one of the most attractive exhibits in the 
Park. A noteworthy feature of the report is the complete list of mammals, 
birds, and reptiles by species and individuals and the care exercised in the 
use of correct scientific names.— T.S. P. 


Annual Report of the New York Zoological Society.*— The report 
for 1918 shows commendable progress in the various activities of the New 
York Zoological Society in spite of adverse conditions due to the war. Two 
sections of this report contain notes of ornithological interest. The Depart- 
ment of Birds, in charge of Lee 8. Crandall, Curator, and William Beebe, 
Honorary Curator, has maintained its collections ‘‘ somewhat reduced in 
numbers but still rich in rare and unusual forms.”’ Only 16 species new to 
the collection were added during the year. Of these, the most important 


1 California Fish and Game. Published quarterly by the California Fish and Game 
Commission, Sacramento, Calif. 

2 Fins, Feathers and Fur, Official Bulletin of the Minnesota Game and Fish Department, 
Carlos Avery, Commissioner, St. Paul, Minn. 

3 Report of the Superintendent of the National Zoological Park for the Fiscal Year 
ending June 30, 1918. Reprint from Ann. Rept. Smithsonian Institution for 1918, pp. 
66-81, Washington, Govt. Printing Office, 1919. 

4 Twenty-Third Annual Report of the New York Zoological Society, 1918, 8vo, pp. 156, 
1919 (Dept. of Birds, pp. 67-70, Tropical Research Station, pp. 84-86). Office of the 
Society, 111 Broadway, New York. 


608 Recent Literature. [Set 


were a male Argus Pheasant (Argusianus argus), an adult male Regent 
Bird (Sericulus chrysocephalus), a Gyreen-backed Trumpeter (Psophia 
viridis), a Double-banded Puff-bird (Bucco bicinctus) “ probably never 
before exhibited alive,’ and a chick of the Galeated Curassow (Pauzi 
pauat). Among the birds bred in the Park during the year were three 
Upland Geese (Chloéphaga magellanica) and a Banded Curassow (Crax 
sclateri) — both apparently first records of the breeding of these species 
in the United States. The census of birds on January 1, 1919, showed 736 
species represented by 2,406 individuals as compared with 813 species and 
2,799 individuals the previous year. The number of species in some of the 
larger groups in the collection were as follows: Galliformes, 68; Columbi- 
formes, 61; Anseriformes, 54; Psittaciformes, 66, and Passeriformes, 332. 

The Tropical Research Station in the Bartica District of British Guiana 
was compelled to suspend field work, but the Director, William Beebe, and 
the Preparateur, John Tee Van, ‘“ spent all the time available in a careful 
review of past collections and of zoological literature for records of the 
higher vertebrates of British Guiana, resulting in a preliminary check 
list’ which will be published in the near future. The number of species 
of birds credited to the Bartica District is 426. An expedition in charge 
of Director Beebe sailed in February, 1919, to reopen the station on a new 
and permanent site at Katabo, at the junction of the Mazaruni and Cuyuni 
Rivers.— T. S. P. 


The Meaning of Natural Control.— In a paper! with this title Mr. 
John D. Tothill calls attention to the obvious fact that in each generation’ 
of any animal, all but two individuals from the total progeny of each pair 
must perish. This mortality is due chiefly to natural control, and in explain- 
ing how the natural control of certain insects is accomplished the author 
makes certain interesting references to birds. 

Among predatory enemies of insects the chief are birds and insects. 
In the case of the Forest Tent-caterpillar the percentage of destruction due 
to various enemies is estimated, and chickadees and mites together are 
credited with the destruction of 25 % of the eggs. Doubtless the major 
share of these fall to the chickadees. As further examples of the work 
of birds, the author states that the Cecropia moth in New Brunswick is 
held in check chiefly by the Downy and Hairy Woodpeckers, and that 
the Red-eyed Vireo is one of the chief factors in the control of the Fall 
Webworm. 

In the tabulation of the enemies of the latter insect, birds are credited 
with a percentage of destruction of the broods, varying in different years, 
from 11.4 % to 89.5%. In 1912, when the insect was fairly plentiful, a 
reduction in numbers was brought about chiefly by parasites (insects). 
In succeeding years the parasites gradually died out as the insect became 
rare, and control was maintained almost exclusively by birds.— W. L. M. 


) 
1 Proc. Ent. Soc., Nova Scotia, 1918, pp. 10-14. 


‘ 


poet Recent Literature. 609 


An Essay on Crows.— In a paper! devoted chiefly to the Australian 
Corvide, W. W. Froggatt gives interesting historic lore, and notes on the 
habits of crows and ravens of all parts of the world. The American Crow 
is treated under the name Corvus corone. 

The Australian Crows, like their relatives the world over, are severely 
criticised for certain injurious traits, and Mr. Froggatt is in sympathy with 
efforts to control their numbers when necessary. On the other hand, he 
points out their valuable habits in the way of feeding on insects and in 
cleaning up carrion. He asserts that they are the best scavenger birds in 
Australia, and that it is preferable to maintain them in numbers than to 
introduce ecarrion-feeder birds from other countries, a movement that has 
actually been taken up by the Australian Government. In a land where 
the introduction of exotic species has proved so disastrous as it has in 
Australia, it would seem that further experiments along this line would be 
avoided.— W. L. M. 


Two Papers on African Economic Ornithology.— Captain 8. 8. 
Flower and Mr. M. J. Nicoll are the authors of a profusely and well illus- 
trated brochure 2? intended to acquaint the people of Egypt with 25 of the 
more important birds protected by law. The authors state that previous 
efforts along educational lines have borne fruit. Protected birds are still 
sold for food in Cairo, however, being picked to hide their identity. Better 
knowledge of the birds on the part of officials, one of the objects of the 
bulletin reviewed, is expected to help end this traffic. "The authors remark 
that: ‘Egypt is a country specially adapted to ravages by insect-pests, 
because natural enemies of these insects (e. 7., birds) are scarce. It is 
recognized as an axiom that no artificial system of insect destruction is 
comparable in effect with that which nature herself imposes by means of 
natural enemies, and it therefore becomes essential that every possible 
effort to preserve insectivorous birds should be carried out by the cultiva- 
tors, as well as being supported by all who have an interest in the welfare 
of agriculture in the country.” 

In an account of ‘Some Insects Injurious to the Black Wattle (Acacia 
mollissima Wild.),’ a tanbark plant, C. B. Hardenberg notes’ that birds 
have both an injurious and a beneficial relation with respect to the chief 
insect enemy of the plant, the bagworm. Circumstantial evidence indicates 
that birds serve to distribute the pest, but the bird-carried bagworms usu- 
ally are insignificant compared to the general infestation due to other agen- 
cies. Four kinds of birds have been observed feeding on the bagworm 
in various stages, thus contributing toward the natural control of this 
well-protected insect.— W. L. M. 


1 The Crow Family. The Australian Zoologist, Vol.1, Pt. 6, Nov. 11, 1918, pp. 189-195. 

2The Principal Speciés of Birds Protected by Law in Egypt. Ministry Agr., Cairo. 
1918, pp. iv+ 8, 8 Col. Pls. 

3 Bul. 1, 1918, Dept. Agr., Union, 8. Africa, 1919, pp. 25, 34-35. 


610 Recent Literature. lous 


Report on the Economic Value of Eight British Birds.— In a 
recent report ! Professor Walter E. Collinge further shows his reliance on the 
volumetric method of analyzing the contents of birds’ stomachs, and throws 
a clearer light on the economic relations of eight species of British birds. 
The Jackdaw although having a bad name like most of the Crow family, 
is found, on the whole, considerably more beneficial than injurious. Only 
occasionally is combating it warranted. The Starling has increased enor- 
mously in England during the past 15 years and consequently has been 
forced to change its feeding habits. Repressive measures calculated to 
bring the bird back to its normal abundance are needed; then it is prac- 
tically certain the species could again be classed as useful. The Chaffinch 
is not of decided economic importance, one way or the other. It destroys 
some fruit buds and grain, which it seems to pay for by an equivalent con- 
sumption of injurious insects. Vigorous methods either for or against 
the bird are not indicated. The Yellow Bunting, like the Chaffinch, has an 
almost neutral economic significance. The Great Tit and the Blue Tit 
are shown to be heavy consumers of injurious insects. Both species differ 
from the American Titmice in doing some damage to fruit, but the conclu- 
sion as to their general economic tendencies is, as would be expected, dis- 
tinetly favorable. Two thrushes are reported upon, of which the Song 
Thrush is shown to damage fruit, at times, but to compensate for it by 
insect destruction, and the Fieldfare is shown to be almost exclusively 
beneficial.— W. L. M. 


The Ornithological Journals. 

Bird-Lore. X XI, No. 3. May-June, 1919. 

The Warblers of Central New York. By Arthur A. Allen (concluded). 

Notes from A Traveller.in the Tropics. IV. Peru. By Frank M. 
Chapman.— An interesting account of familiar species with figures of the 
White-throated Song Sparrow (Brachyspiza capensis) and the Flightless 
Grebe of Lake Titicaca (Centropelma micropterum). 

Purple Finches. By Mrs. H. F. Straw.— Interesting notes on habits. 

Two Thrushes. By T. A. Taper.— Olive-back and Hermit with obser- 
vations on nesting. 

The migration and plumage notes refer to the Blue, Green and Steller’s 
Jays, with plate by Fuertes, while the Audubon leaflet treats of the Least 
Bittern, the plate being by Horsfall. 

Bird-Lore. X XI, No. 4. July-August, 1919. 

Nature and England. By Frank M. Chapman.— An impressive pen 
picture of England in spring time and her people recovering from the strain 
of war. 


1Some Further Investigations on the Food of Wild Birds. Journ. Board Agr. [London], 
25, No. 12, March, 1919, pp. 1444-1462, 9 figs. (diagrams). 


5 
é 


rT igio | Recent Literature. 611 


A Pocket Sanctuary. By F. Randle.— Treats of familiar Oregon birds. 

The Night Warbler. By H. E. Tuttle— A remarkably fine photograph 
of the Ovenbird on its nest, with appropriate text. 

The Condor. X XI, No.3. May-June, 1919. 

Some Notes on the Egg of Aepyornis maximus. By Wm. C. Bradbury. 
With photographs. 

Autobiographical Notes. By Henry Wetherbee Henshaw. With por- 
trait.— A delightful article to be continued in succeeding numbers. It 
abounds in interesting historical and biographical information. 

A Return to the Dakota Lake Region. By Florence M. Bailey. VI. 
The Coulee of the Meadows. 

Malcolm Playfair Anderson. By M. B. Anderson. 

Description of an Interesting Junco from Lower California. By Harry 
C. Oberholser.— Junco oreganus pontilis (p. 119) from the Hanson Laguna 
Mountains. : 

The Condor. XXI,No.4. July-August, 1919. 

A Favorite Nesting Haunt of the Merrill Song Sparrow. By Henry J. 
Rust.— With excellent photographie illustrations. 

Nesting of the Northern Pileated Woodpecker. By H. W. Carriger and 
Gurnie Wells. 

A Return to the Dakota Lake Region. By Florence M. Bailey.— VII. 
The Gem of the Sweetwaters in Cove and Shore. 

A Short Paper on the Hutton Vireo. By Clark C. Van Fleet. 

The Wilson Bulletin. XX XI, No.1. March, 1919. 

The Food Habits of the Smith Sound Eskimos. By W. E. Ekblaw. 
Migration Records for Kansas Birds. By Bessie P. Douthitt. (Continued 
in June.) 

Description of a New Red-winged Blackbird from Texas. By Harry C. 
Oberholser.— Agelaius pheniceus megapotamus (p. 20). Rio Grande 
Valley, type from Brownsville. 

The Wilson Bulletin. X X XI, No. 2, June, 1919. 

The Snow Bunting, an Arctic Study in Black and White. By W. E. 
Ekblaw. 

The Bald Eagle in Louisiana. By A. M. Bailey. 

The Gray Kingbird in Wakulla County, Florida. By John Williams. 

A Day with Lake County Birds. By F. N. Shankland. 

The Odlogist. XX XV, No.4. April, 1919. 

Nesting of the American Hawk Owl. By A.S. Henderson. 

Cowbird Study in Iowa. By E. A. Stoner.— Gives data for a number 
of nests containing Cowbird eggs. 

The Ibis. XI Series, Vol. I, No.3. July, 1919. 

A Preliminary Study of the Relation between Geographical Distribution 
and Migration with Special Reference to the Palearctic Region. By R. 
Meinertzhagen.— This is a plea for the importance of the recognition of 
‘subspecies as an aid to the study of migration. All through his discussion, 
however, the author seems to have but one phase of migration in mind, 


612 Recent Literature. lone 


i. e. migration routes. With his statements in this connection we heartily 
agree. 

On Birds from South Annam and Cochin China. Part I. Phasianidee — 
Campophagide. By H. C. Robinson and C. Boden Kloss.— This is the 
first instalment of a fully annotated list of birds collected by Kloss during a 
couple of months early in 1918. * In all 1525 specimens were obtained, repre- 
senting 235 species and subspecies of which 34 are described as new. The 
itinerary, which is interesting reading, is prepared by Kloss and the anno- 
tated list by the two authors together. The present installment covers 
62 pages and we notice the following new forms: Arboricola rufogularis 
annamensis (p. 403), Langbian Peaks; A. brunnetpectus albigula (p. 405), 
Dran; Pyrotrogon erythrocephalus annamensis (p. 424), Dran; Cyanops 
corti annamensis (p. 428), Dalat; C. franklini auricularis (p. 428), Langbian 
Peaks; Niltava grandis decorata (p. 444); Dendrobiastes hyperythra annamen- 
sis (p. 445); Cryptolopha castaneiceps annamensis (p. 447); C. malcolm- 
smithi (p. 448); C. tephrocephala ocularis (p. 448); all the latter from the 
Langbian Peaks. There are colored plates of the two Tree Partridges and 
a number of views of the country. The authors decide that the great 
majority of those species which are not typically Indo-Chinese are dis- 
tinctly Himalayan, with some Malayan forms which here reach the limit 
of their range. Typical Chinese species were unexpectedly few. 

On the Plumage-development of Nettion torquatum, Pecilonetta erythro- 
rhyncha and Anas undulata. By F. E. Blaauw.— Descriptions of various 
plumages. 

List of the Birds of the Canary Islands. Part III. Picidaee — Sulide. 
By David A. Bannerman.— Another installment of this almost mono- 
graphic account. 

Further Ornithological Notes from the Neighborhood of Cape San 
Antonio, Province of Buenos Ayres. Part II. Trochilidse — Plataleide. 
By Ernest Gibson.— An entertaining account of Argentine bird life. 

Bulletin of the British Ornithologists’ Club. No. CC XLII. 
April 30, 1919. 

The following new forms are described: By W. L. Sclater, Leucopternis 
ghiesbreghti costaricensis (p. 76), Carillo, Costa Rica; by E. Stuart Baker, 
Rhinortha chlorophea fuscigularis (p. 77), Sarawak, Borneo; and Poliopsar 
leucocephalus annamensis (p. 77), Nhatrang; by Chas. Chubb, Synallaxis 
macconnelli (p. 78), Mt. Roraima, British Guiana. 

Bulletin of the British Ornithologists’ Club. CC XLIII. June 4, 
1919. 

Lord Rothschild having obtained some specimens of Ostriches from the 
Syrian desert finds them distinctly smaller than the North African form, 
a fact that had already been suggested by the smaller size of the eggs, he 
therefore describes it as Struthio camelus syriacus (p. 83), wisely restrict- 
ing camelus to the African bird. 

Dr. Hartert describes Melanocorypha bimaculata gaza (p. 84), Shellal, 
Palestine, and Corvus cornix judeus (p. 85), Bir Salem, Palestine. He also: 


Ses, ee a 


Vol. see tall 
1919 


Recent Literature. 613 
discusses the nomenclature of the Guinea-fowls, and although he says that 
were we starting afresh the specific name meleagris Linn. would have to be 
applied to the species now known as ptilorhyncha, it is undoubtedly based 
upon a mixture of this and the West African form to which it is usually 
applied. Like Lord Rothschild he prefers not to upset current nomen- 
clature although he does not apparently definitely fix the application of 
Linnzus’ name. In order to complete the work we would therefore defi- 
nitely, restrict Phasianus meleagris to the West African Guinea-fowl usually 
called by that name or by Pallas’ name Nwmida galeata. The attitude of 
Lord Rothschild and Dr. Hartert is most praiseworthy and we should like 
to see it adopted by certain authors who rush into changes that might. 
easily be avoided without violating the rules of any Code. 

W. L. Sclater describes Spizaétes batesi (p. 87), Bitye, Cameroons and 
Chas. Chubb proposes Lophotriccus macconnelli (p. 90), Ituribisi, British 
Guiana. 

Bulletin of the British Ornithologists’ Club. No. CC XLIV. 
June 30, 1919. ’ 

Chlorophoneus andarye (p. 94), is described by Sir. F. Jackson from 
Uganda. Chas. Chubb proposes a new genus Microcochlearius (p. 98) for 
Euscarthmus josephine Chubb. 

D. A. Bannerman proposes Crateropus tenebrosus claudei (p. 99) from 
Poko, Belgian Congo. 

British Birds. XII, No. 11. April, 1919. 

Ornithological Notes from Norfolk for 1918. 25th Annual Report. By 
J. H. Gurney. 

British Birds. XII, No.12. May, 1919. 

Birds of the Battlefields. By Capt. Arthur deC. Sowerby. 

Bird Notes from the Western Front. (Pas-de-Calais). By Capt. W. 8. 
Medlicott. 

British Birds. XIII, No.1. June, 1919. 

Additions and Corrections to the Hand-List of British Birds. By the 
Authors.— Several of these affect species in the A. O. U. List. The Ameri- 
ean Goshawk is added under the name Accipiter gentilis atricapillus, the 
bird being regarded as a subspecies of the European while the genus Astur 
is not recognized. The generic names Machetes and Calidris are rejected 
in favor of Philomachus and Crocethia, they having been used in other 
connections by an anonymous author of earlier date, as pointed out by 
Dr. C. W. Richmond. Mr. Ridgway in the last volume of his ‘ Birds of 
North and Middle America,’ it will be noticed refuses to recognize this ‘ 
anonymous author, but according to our Code Dr. Richmond and the au- 
thors of the British ‘List’ must be followed. The name of the Glaucous 
Gull is changed to Larus hyperboreus following the A. O. U. “Check-List.’ 

The Bittern in the Norfolk Broads. By Emma L. Turner.— This bird 
has been regarded as a “ lost breeding species’ in England, having been 
driven out by persistent persecution. During the war, however, it has 
reestablished itself and the hope of the author is that it may be allowed to 


614 Recent Literature. lone 


persist. “The war” she writes “has been a godsend to the birds of 
Great Britain, because it has kept the majority of gunners and collectors 
busy elsewhere.’’ Nevertheless in Norfolk evidence has been collected of 
the killing of fifteen Bitterns during the past year. 

The Rufi.— An Early Record. By W. H. Mullens.— An account of a 
rare and curious black letter tract describing the occurrence of the Ruff 
in England in 1586. 

British Birds. XIII, No.2. July, 1919. 

The Pied and White Wagtails. By H. F. Witherby.— Descriptions and 
figures of the various plumages of these two allied races. 

Note on the Drumming of Woodpeckers. By J. S. Huxley.— The dead 
hollow stub upon which a Woodpecker had been seen drumming on many 
occasions was cut off and showed no marks of the bill whatever. Prof. 


Huxley points out that it is the rapidity of the strokes not their force that ° 


produces the resonant sound and cites the action of a Red-headed Wood- 
pecker in the United States drumming on a tin post covering where the best 
result in sound could be secured. The reviewer has noticed the same 
species persistently drumming on a lightning rod. 

The Birds of Bardsey Island (Wales). By N. F. Ticehurst. (Continued 
in the August number.) 

British Birds. XIII, No.3. August, 1919. 

Down Tracts of Nestling Birds. By Collingwood Ingram.— Discussion 
of the nomenclature of feather tracts of the head. 

Avicultural Magazine. X, No. 6. April, 1919. 

The Pigeons of the Gambia. By E. Hopkinson. (Continued.) 

Avicultural Magazine. X, No. 7. May, 1919. 

The History of Birds’ Nests. By A. G. Butler.— A speculative discus- 
sion. 

The Necessity of State Action for the Protection of Wild Birds. By 
W. E. Collinge. 

A Curious Habit of the Moorhen. By E. G. B. Meade-Waldo.— One 
young fed by another. 

Avicultural Magazine. X, No.8. June, 1919. 

The Wattle of Cabot’s Tragopan. By H. D. Astley.— A criticism of the 
plate in Beebe’s ‘ Pheasants.’ 

Avicultural Magazine. X,No.10. August, 1919. 

Bird Life in South Africa. By F. W. H. Seppings. 

Bird Life about Moree, N.S. W. The Home of the White-winged Blue 
Wren. By an old Australian Bird Lover. 

The Emu. XVIII, Part 4. April, 1919. 

A New Pigeon for Australia. The Red-cered Pigeon (Globicera rubricera). 
By J. A. Kershaw. 

Notes on Birds Breeding in Dampier Archipelago, N. W. Coast of 
Australia. By F. L. Whitlock. 

Further Notes on Additions to the ‘“ H. L. White Collection.” By A. J. 
Campbell. (Continued.) 


——— 


= 


ice el Recent Literature. 615 

Down Marlo Way. By Dr. Brooks Nichols and others. 

The Birds of the Pilliga Scrub, New South Wales. By J. B. Cleland. 

Six Months’ Record of a Pair of Mallee-Fowls. By J. A. Ross.— A 
valuable record. 

Report on Investigations in Regard to the Spread of Prickly Pear by the 
Serub Turkey. By G. B. Brookes.—The results of the investigation showed 
that the bird was not an active agent in spreading the plant. 

The Emu. XIX, Part I. July, 1919. 

Notes on Birds Observed in the Upper Clarence River District, N.S. W., 
Sept.—Dec., 1918. By J. Ramsey. 

Material for a Study of the Megapodide. By R. W. Shufeldt.— A 
review of the literature and a list of specimens in the U. 8. National Mus- 
eum arranged according to Ogilvie-Grant (British Museum Catalogue, 
Vol. X XII). Numerous illustrations from photographs of skins and 
mounted specimens. 

The Black-throated Honey-eater (Melithreptus gularis). By P. A. Gil- 
bert. 

Bird Notes from Mackay, Queensland. By W. G. and R. C. Harvey.— 
With remarkably fine illustrations from photographs of wild birds. 

An Ornithologist with the A. I. F. in Egypt and Palestine. By F. L. 
Berney. 

A Dipterous Parasite on Nestling Birds. By P. A. Gilbert. 

The Changes in Colour of the Bill of the Black Moor-Hen. By W. B. 
Alexander. 

Revue Francaise d’Ornithologie. XI, No. 119. March 7, 1919. 
{In French.] 

Notes on the Common Cormorant of Sfax. By P. Bede. 

Revue Francaise d’Ornithologie. XI, No.120. April 7, 1919. 

On the Mechanical Balance between the Comparative Length of the 
Wing and Tarsi in Birds. By M. Boubier. 

Critical Notes on the Hummingbirds. By M. E. Simon.— Fifteen new 
genera are proposed. 

Revue Francaise d’Ornithologie. XI, No. 121. May 7, 1919. 

Inquiry into the Disappearance of the Sparrow in the South. By A. 
Menegaux. 

L’Ornithologiste (Organ of the Swiss Society for the Study and Pro- 
tection of Birds.) [In German.] XVI, Nos. 1-10, October, 1918—July, 
1919. 

Contains articles on local bird life with an Analysis of the Song of the 
Creeper. By H. Stadler and C. Schmitt, in No. 4. 

El Hornero. I, No.3. December, 1918. [In Spanish.] 

The Lariformes of the Republic of Argentina. By R. Dabbene.— 
Reviews the Terns. 

Biological Notes on the Birds of North-eastern Argentina. By Luis 
Dinelli. (Continued.) ‘ 

List of the Birds of Mendocina. By Renato Sanzin. 


616 Recent Literature. Kees 


The Fantastic Ornithology of the Conquistadors. By <A. Cardoso. 
(Continued.) — With illustrations from old works. 

Notes on a Collection of Birds from the Island of Martin Garcia. By R. 
Dabbene. (Continued). 

Description of Two Forms of Birds Apparently New from N. W. Argen- 
tina. By R. Dabbene. Penelope nigrifrons (p. 178), Cerro de Calilegua, 
Jujuy and Spinus ictericus magnirostris (p. 181), Sierra del Cajon, Salta. 

Ardea. VII, No. 4, 1918. [In Dutch.] 

Ornithological Observations in Holland. By E. D. Van Oort.— Includes 
records of a number of hybrid ducks. A. boschas with Dafila acuta, 
Mareca penelope and Chaulelasmus streperus and Dafila acuta with Mareca 
penelope. 

Reports from the Ornithological Experiment Station at Heuman. By 
Jan J. Luden van Heumen.— Elaborate report on the food of the Pheasant 
(Phasianus colchicus) with stomach and crop contents of 96 individuals. 

Tori [Birds]. II, No. 7. 1918. 

Through the courtesy of our Corresponding Fellow in Tokyo, Mr. 
Nagamichi Kuroda, we are able to present translations of the titles of the 
principal articles in the last number of “Tori” for 1918 published in Japan- 
ese by the Ornithological Society of Japan. 

1. An Annotated List of the Birds of Quelpart Island. By Nagamichi 
IXuroda and Tamezo Mori. 

2. Observations on Young Birds of Ninox scutulata. By M. Kawa- 
guchi. 

3. Occurrence of Chatharacta antarctica and Syrrhaptes paradoxus in 
Japan. By Nagamichi Kuroda. 

4. A Collection of Birds from the Loo Choo Islands and Amamioshima. 
By E. Horii. 

5. A List of Birds collected on the west coast of Kamchatka. By 
T. Momiyama. 

The number also contains a portrait of the late M. Namiye. 

Tori [Birds] (Bulletin of the Ornithological Society of Japan). IL. 
No. 8, 1919. [In Japanese. Beginning with this number the table of 
contents is also printed in English]. 

Frontispiece. A flock of Water-fowls on the outer Moat of the Imperial 
Palace. 

On some specimens of birds from Saghalin in the Sapporo Museum. By 
T. Momiyama. 

On the migration of some common species of birds in the vicinity of 
Seoul, Corea. By N. Kuroda and J. Mikayoda. 

On the habits and sexual differences of the Himalayan Cuckoo. By 
M. Kawaguchi. 

Migration and habits of swallows in Shikoku. By Y. Enomoto. 

Notes on some birds from Iruma-gun, Prefect, Saitama. By T. 
Momiyama and M. Nomura. 

History of the Audubon Movement. ‘Translated by 8S. Uchida. 


Mes ao | Recent Literature. 617 


Ornithological Articles in Other Journals. 


Brigham, Edward M. The Hoactzin — Only Survivor of an Ancient 
Order of Four-footed Birds. (Natural History, XIX, February, 1919.) — 
An account of the discovery of the quadrupedal nature of the young by the 
discoverer. 

Evans, William. The Great Crested Grebe in Forth. (The Scottish 
Naturalist Mareh—April, 1919.) 

Evans, William. Woodcock and the Safety of their Young. (/bid.) 

Baxter, Evelyn V. and Rintoul, L. J. On the Great Crested Grebe 
as a Scottish Breeding Species. (/bzd., May—June, 1919.) 

Rintoul, Leonora J. and Baxter, Evelyn V. Report on Scottish Orni- 
thologyin 1918. (/bid. July—August, 1919.) 

O’Donoghue, C. H. and Gowanlock, J. Nelson. Notes on the Caspian 
Tern (Sterna caspia) and the Parasitic Jaeger (Stercorarius parasiticus) 
in Manitoba. (Canadian Field-Naturalist, April, 1919.) — A number of 
other species are also listed. 

Taverner, P. A. The Birds of Shoal Lake. Manitoba. (/bid.) — 
Continued from The Ottawa Naturalist, X X XII, p. 164. 

Farley, F. L. The White Pelican, Pelecanus erythrorhynchos, in Alberta. 
([bid., May, 1919). 

Hornaday, W. T. Beebe’s Great Pheasant Monograph. (N. Y. Zoo- 
logical Society Bulletin. January, 1919.) 

Hiornaday], W. T. Bird Notes from South America. The Truth 
about Gathering Egret Plumes in Venezuela, Slaughter of the Condors, and 
Insect Pests Follow Bird Slaughter. (/bid.) — Extracts from Leo E. 
Miller’s ‘ In the Wilds of South America.’ 

Crandall, Lee S. Rare Birds in the Zoological Park. (/bid.) — Emus, 
Upland Geese, etc. 

Shufeldt, R. W. The Osteology of the Giant Gallinule of the Philip- 
pines, Porphyrio pulverulentus Temminck. With notes on the Osteology 
of Tachybaptus philippensis (Bonnaterre) and Hydrophasianus chirurgus 
(Scopoh). (Philipp. Jour. of Sci., January, 1919.) 

C{ulin], S[tewart]. Japanese Color Prints Illustrating Samuel Smiles’ 
Self Help. (Brooklyn Museum Quarterly, April, 1919.).— This work was 
translated into Japanese in 1878 under the title ‘ The Western Countries ’ 
Book of Successful Careers.’ Audubon’s was one of these and the illustra- 
tion which accompanied the sketch is reproduced here. It represents the 
ornithologist on his knees opening the box in which were his drawings that 
had been destroyed by rats. It adds one more to the list of portraits 
given by Prof. Herrick. 

Nichols, J. T. Notes and Habits of Shore Birds. (Bulletin of the 
American Game Protective Association, April, 1919.) — An excellent 
account of some of the commoner species. 

Cole, L. J.and Lippincott, W. A. The Relation of Plumage to Ovarian 


618 Recent Literature. ee 


Condition in a Barred Plymouth Rock Pullet. (Biological Bulletin, March, 
1919). — A pullet with ovarian tumor developed male plumage but reverted 
to female upon the implantation of ovarian tissue. The barring in Ply- 
mouth Rock poultry differs in the two sexes and in this instance the 
‘male’ plumage while male in shape and structure resembled the female 
in barring. 


Publications Received.— Adams, Charles C. The Roosevelt Wild 
Life Forest Experiment Station. (Science, XLXI, June 6, 1919.) 

Bangs, Outram, and Penard, Thomas E. Some Critical Notes on 
Birds. (Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool., LXIII, No. 2.) 

Bangs, Outram. <A New Striated Grass Warbler from the Philippines. 
(Proc: N. E. Zool. Club, June 6, 1919.) 

Bent, Arthur Cleveland. Life Histories of North American Birds, 
Order Pygopodes. (Bull. 107, U.S. Nat. Mus., 1919.) 

Childs, John Lewis. First Supplement to a Catalogue of the Natural 
History Books in the Library of John Lewis Childs. July 1, 1919. 

Chubb, Charles. Notes on collections of Birds in the British Museum, 
from Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, and Argentina. Part II. Podicipediformes— 
Accipitriformes. (Ibis, April, 1919.) 

Cole, Leon J., and Kelley. Studies on Inheritance in Pigeons. III. 
Description and Linkage Relations of Two Sex-Linked Characters. (Genet- 
ics, March, 1919.) 

Cole, Leon J., and Lippincott, William A. The Relation of Plumage 
to Ovarian Condition in a Barred Plymouth Rock Pullet. (Biological 
Bulletin, March, 1919.) 

French, John C. The Passenger Pigeon in Pennsylvania. Altoona, 
Pa., 1919. Price $4.00. Franklin Book Shop, 920 Walnut St., Philadelphia. 

Gladstone, Hugh 8. Birds and the War. Skeffington & Son, Ltd., 34 
Southampton St., Strand, W.C.2, London. 1919. Price 5s. net. 

Lawyer, George A., and Earnshaw, Frank L. Game Laws for 1919. 
Farmers’ Bulletin 1077, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, August, 1919. 

Lawyer, George A. Federal Protection of Migratory Birds. (Yearbook 
of the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, 1918.) 

Lonnberg, Einar. (1) Hybrid Gulls (Arkiv. Zool. Svensk. Vetenssk. 
Acad., Band 12, No. 7, 1919). (2) Birds Collected in Eastern Cogo by 
Capt. Ehas Arrhenius. (Jbid., Band 10, No. 24.) (3) Notes on Some 
Interesting East African Birds. (/bid., Band 11, No. 5, 1919.) 

Mathews, Gregory M. The Birds of Australia. Vol. VII, Part V, 
July 10, 1919. 

Oberholser, Harry C. The Birds of the Tambelan Islands, South 
China Sea. (Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus., Vol. 55, pp. 129-148.) (2) Notes on 
the Wrens of the Genus Nannus Billberg. (/bid., pp. 223-236.) (3) Notes 
on Birds Collected by Dr. W. L. Abbott on Pulo Taya, Berhala Strait, 
Southeastern Sumatra. (Ibid., pp. 267-274.) (4) A Revision of the Sub- 
species of the White-collared Kingfisher, Sawropatis chloris (Boddaert). 


eo wie Recent Literature. 619 


([bid., pp. 351-395.) (5) The Races of the Nicobar Megapode, Megapodius 
nicobariensis Blyth. (Ibid., pp. 399-402.) (6) Notes on Dr. W. L. 
Abbott’s Second Collection of Birds from Simalur, Western Sumatra. 
([bid., pp. 473-498.) 

Pemberton, J. R. Second Ten Year Index to The Condor. Vols. 
XI-XX, 1909-1919. Cooper Ornithological Club, Pacifie Avifauna 
No. 13, August 15, 1919, pp. 1-92. Price $3.00. 

Ridgway, Robert. The Birds of North and Middle America. Part 
VIII., pp. 1-852. (Bull. 50, U.S. Nat. Mus.) 

Riley, J. H. Six New Birds from Celebes and Java. (Proc. Biol. Soc., 
Washington, May 20, 1919.) 

Roberts, Thomas 8., M. D. (1) Water Birds of Minnesota; Past and 
Present. (Biennial Rept. State Game and Fish Comm., Minnesota.) 
(2) A Review of the Ornithology of Minnesota. (Research Publications 
of the Univ. of Minn., Current Problems No. 11, May, 1919.) 

Sclater, W. L. A Note.on the Buzzards of the Ethiopian Region. 
(Ibis., April, 1919.) 

Shufeldt, R. W. The Osteology of the Giant Gallinule of the Philip- 
pines, Porphyrio pulverulentus Temmink. (Philipp. Jour. of Science, 
Vol. XIV, No. 1, January, 1919.) 

Townsend, Charles Haskins, and Wetmore, Alexander. Reports on 
the Scientific Results of the Expedition to the Tropical Pacific in Charge 
of Alexander Agassiz, on the U. S. Fish Commission Steamer ‘“ Albatross,” 
from August, 1899, to March, 1900, Commander Jefferson F. Moser, 
U.S. N., commanding. The Birds. (Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool., LXIII, 
No. 4, August, 1919.) 

Wallace, John H. Alabama Bird Day Book, pp. 1-103. 

West Chester Bird Club Report of 1919. 

Wetmore, Alexander. Lead Poisoning in Waterfowl. (Bull. No. 793, 
U.S. Dept. of Agr., July, 1919.) 

White, Capt. S. A. (1) Ooldea on the East West Railway; on the 
Flooded Murray River and Other Sketches. (2) The Gawler Ranges, an 
Ornithological Expedition. 1913 (reprinted from newspapers in small 
quarto.) 

Wilson, Francis M. Brief of the U.S. versus Violators of the Migra- 
tory Bird Treaty, District Court of the U. 8. for the St. Joseph Division of 
the Western District of Missouri. 

Witherby, H. F. A Practical Handbook of British Birds. Part 2, 
April 30, 1919. Part 3, June 18, 1919. 

Austral Avian Record, The, III, No. 5 (December 28, 1917). 

Avicultural Magazine, The, (3) X, Nos. 7,8, 9, 10, May to August, 1919. 

Bird-Lore, XXI, Nos. 3 and 4, May-June and July-August, 1919. 

Bird Notes and News, VIII, Nos. 5 and 6, spring and summer, 1919. 

British Birds, XII, Nos. 12 and XIII, Nos. 1, 2 and 3, May to August, 
1919. 

Brooklyn Museum Quarterly, The, April, 1919. 


620 Recent Literature. eae i 


Bulletin of the American Game Protective Association, Vol. VIII, Nos. 2 
and 3, April and July, 1919. 

Bulletin of the British Ornithologists’ Club, CCXLII, CCXLIII and 
CCXLIV, April 30, June 4 and 30, 1919. 

Bulletin of the Charleston Museum, XV, No. 5, April, 1919. 

Bluebird, XI, Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9, April-August, 1919. 

California Fish and Game, Vol. 5, Nos. 2 and 3, April and July, 1919. 

Cassinia, XXII, for 1918. (April, 1919.) 

Canadian Field Naturalist, The, XX XIII, Nos. 1 and 2, April and 
May, 1919. 

Condor, The, X XI, Nos. 3 and 4, May-June and July-August, 1919. 

Hornero, El, I, No. 3, December, 1918. 

Emu, XVIII, Part 4, April, 1919, and XIX, Part I, July, 1919. 

Fins, Feathers and Fur. Nos. 17 and 18, March and June, 1919. 

Ibis, The (II), I, No. 3, July, 1919. 

L’Ornithologiste, XVI, Nos. 8-9 and 10, May-June and July, 1919. 

Natural History, XIX, Nos. 2 and 3, February and March, 1919. 

Oologist, The, XX XV, Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8, May—August, 1919. 

Philippine Journal of Science, XIV, No. 1, January, 1919. 

Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, LX-XI, 
Part I, January—March, 1919. 

Revue Francais d’Ornithologie, Nos. 120, 121, 122, April, May and June, 
1919. 

Scottish Naturalist, The, 87-88, 89-90, and 91-92, March to August, 
1919. 

South Australian Ornithologist, The, IV, Part 2, April, 1919. 

Wilson Bulletin, The, XX XI, No. 2, June, 1919. 


se in| Correspondence. 621 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


Permits to Collect Birds for Scientific Purposes in Canada. 


Epiror or ‘THe AvK’: 


Considerable confusion and delay has arisen because ornithologists 
wishing to collect birds or their nests or eggs in the Dominion of Canada 
have not been familiar with the law. 

Application for permission to take migratory insectivorous, migratory 
game, or migratory non-game birds, as defined in the Migratory Birds 
Convention, in Canada, should be made to J. B. Harkin, Commissioner of 
Dominion Parks, Department of the Interior, Ottawa. As other kinds of 
permits are issued by this department, be sure to state explicitly that you 
wish to collect the migratory birds protected by federal law. Permits 
will be issued as promptly as possible, but the collector should allow two 
or three weeks’ time in case unforeseen difficulties arise. 

Applications from recognized museums or scientific societies do not 
require to be supported by testimonials. The director of the museum 
should make application for each person who is collecting for the museum. 
If there is doubt as to the museum being well-known, it is suggested that 
written testimonials be furnished as required for individuals. 

Individual collector’s applications must be supported by written testi- 
monials from two well-known ornithologists. Mere endorsation of the 
application will not suffice. The testimonial should refer fully to the 
ornithological work of the applicant and state the writer’s opinion as to 
the value of that work. 

Applicants should state the locality, if possible, certainly the Province 
in which they intend to collect. 

Permits issued by this branch allow the holder to take birds protected 
by the Migratory Birds Treaty. Many other species are protected by 
Provincial laws, and permission to take them should be sought from the 
Provincial authorities. 


The provincial officers concerned are: 


Position Address Province 

Secretary, Game Conservation 

Board Victoria British Columbia 
Chief Game Guardian Edmonton Alberta 
Chief Game Guardian Regina Saskatchewan 
Chief Game Guardian Winnipeg Manitoba 
Deputy Minister of Game & Fish- 

eries Toronto Ontario 


Deputy Minister, Department of 


622 Correspondence. lowe 


Position Address Province 
Colonization, Mines and Fish- 
eries Quebec Quebec 
Deputy Minister of Lands and 
Mines Fredericton New Brunswick 
Chief Game Commissioner Halifax Nova Scotia 


Charlottetown Prince Edward Island 


Any shipment whatever, by mail, express, or freight, of migratory bird 
specimens must be labelled with the number of the permit, the name and 
address of the shipper, and an accurate statement of the contents, in order 
to comply with the law. 

So that all permit holders will have a proper concept of the principles 
governing the issue of scientific permits, these principles are printed in 
full with each permit. This portion of the permit was written by Mr. P. 
A. Taverner and Dr. R. M. Anderson, of the Museum of the Geological 
Survey of Canada. 

As it is of general interest to ornithologists, it is quoted in conclusion. 


Permit Principles. 


Permits to take migratory birds, their nests and eggs, under the Migra- 
tory Birds Convention Act and Regulations are granted for the sole pur- 
pose of scientific study and not for the collection of objects of curiosity or 
personal or household adornment. Therefore, only such persons as take 
a serious interest in ornithology, and are competent to exercise the privilege 
for the advancement of knowledge, are eligible to receive such permits. 

It is expected that the holders of permits will use them with reasonable 
discretion, taking only such specimens as their scientific needs require 
and avoiding unnecessary waste of life. The habitual taking of numbers 
of individuals for the purpose of obtaining a few specially desirable ones is 
deprecated, and it is urged that the collector take no more specimens than 
he has reasonable prospects of caring for, and will conscientiously endeavor 
to properly prepare each and all when taken. 

It is also recommended that the holders of permits will, so far as is con- 
sistent with their object, be considerate of the local feeling in the neigh- 
bourhood where they collect and will demonstrate both by actions and 
speech that the scientific collector is sympathetic towards the principles 
of wild life conservation and not the rival of legitimate sportsmen. 

It is required as an evidence of good faith that holders of permits label 
their specimens with the customary scientific data and properly care for 
them, not only at the time of collection but thereafter, giving them all 
reasonable protection against insect pests and other agencies of destruction, 
and will not permit them to be destroyed through carelessness or indiffer- 
ence. 

As permits are granted for the purpose of general scientific advancement 
and not for individuals’ benefit, specimens taken under them are to be 


eevee Correspondence. 623 


regarded as being in the nature of public trusts, and should be accessible 
to all duly qualified students, under only such reasonable restrictions as 
are necessary for their protection or as is consistent with the owner’s work. 

Finally, it is urged that provision be made so that specimens taken will 
ultimately find their way into permanent or public collections where they 
will be available for study by future generations and not be wasted and lost 
through neglect. 

While all these conditions are not strictly mandatory, and their spirit 
will be liberally interpreted, they will be considered in the granting or 
renewal of each permit, and evidence of gross violation of them may be 
deemed sufficient ground for the refusal of an application or for the revoca- 
tion of any permit already granted. 

It is hoped and expected that the justice of these principles will be realized 
and that collectors will co-operate in advancing science to the utmost 
without unnecessary waste of valuable bird life. 


Hoyes Luoyp. 


Ornithologist, Dominion Parks Branch. Dept. of the Interior. 
Ottawa, June 30, 1919. 


Capt. Thomas Brown’s ‘Illustrations of the American Ornithology 
of Wilson and Bonaparte.’ 


Epitor or ‘THe AvK’: 


In ‘The Auk’ for April, 1903, pp. 236-241, I gave an account of Capt. 
Thomas Brown’s Edinburgh reproductions of the plates of Wilson and 
Bonaparte’s ‘American Ornithology.’ I showed that Brown’s scheme 
involved three independent reproductions of the American plates, one on 
copper in folio, one on copper in royal octavo, and one on stone in 16 mo. 
The three books that resulted from Brown’s endeavor are among the 
rarest in ornithological literature and therefore of great interest to bib- 
liographers. 

In 1903 I was able to place only three copies (one imperfect) of the folio 
edition and one of the 16 mo. edition, the latter consisting of nineteen 
plates bound in a copy of Jameson’s 1831 edition of Wilson and Bonaparte 
in your own library, Mr. Editor. Many years ago Professor Alfred Newton 
supplied Dr. Coues with a description of Part I of this miniature edition, 
and its title-page is quoted in Coues’s Bibliography, ‘Birds of the Colorado 
Valley,’ p. 600; but when I saw Professor Newton in June, 1902, he had 
lost all recollection of it and we together searched his library for it in vain. 

Of the existence of the royal-octavo edition I was unable to find a trace. 
I surmised, however, from the way the plates of Jardine’s 1832 Wilson and 
Bonaparte were unmercifully trimmed to match the size of the text, that 
this edition was soon appropriated by Jardine to illustrate his own work. 


624 Correspondence. lose 


This surmise is rendered a certainty by a copy of a book now in my pos- 
session. It consists of the ninety-seven hand-colored copper plates of 
Jardine’s edition, printed on larger paper, with three title-pages bound in. 
The titles read as follows: — 

Illustrations | of the | American Ornithology | of | Alexander Wilson, | 
and | Charles Lucian Bonaparte. | Engraved by W. H. Lizars, | and 
Coloured by Captain Thomas Brown, F. L. 8. | President of the Royal 
Physical Society. | Edinburgh: | Printed by Andrew Shortrede. | MDCCC 
XXXII. 

The book is of a squarish shape and might well be termed a small quarto. 
It is bound in full green morocco, gilt-edges. The plates (trimmed) 
measure 10 in. X 7$ in. In untrimmed copies of Jardine’s edition these 


plates measure 8} in. X 52 in. This book was offered for sale in 1918 by’ 


E. P. Dutton & Co. of New York (catalogue price, $40); was bought by 
N. J. Bartlett & Co. of Boston and sold by them to Mr. John E. Thayer 
of Lancaster, Mass., who generously gave it to me. 

In Maggs Bros.’ catalogue No. 316, London, November, 1913, a book 
was advertised called ‘Wilson (Alex.) and Bonaparte (Charles Lucian), 
Illustrations of American Ornithology,’ 4to, morocco, gilt, Edinburgh, 
1832, £4, 4s. It was described as a complete set, on large paper, of the 
plates of Jardine’s edition, with three title-pages bound in. What I infer 
from the description was the same copy was still offered for sale at the 
same price in Maggs’ catalogue, No. 355,in 1917. Judging from the descrip- 
tion this was without doubt the same work that Mr. Thayer secured and 
I fancy from its peculiarities that it was the identical copy. 

Since the publication of my letter in ‘The Auk’ of April, 1903, I have 
succeeded in placing eight more copies of Brown’s folio ‘Illustrations.’ 
I append a census of the known copies, which I hope may be the means of 
bringing others to the light. 

It appears from contemporary notices that a few copies of the folio 
edition were issued in elephant folio. The only example of this édition de 
luxe that I know of is one that I bought of Walter T. Spencer, a London 
bookseller, in July, 1904. It was offered for sale in Spencer’s catalogue 
No. 120 for £3, 10s. Mr. Spencer informed me that he got it at an auction 
sale in Dundee in the winter of 1903-04. It lacks six plates (4, 5, 11, 14, 
84, 93), but is otherwise in superb condition, and is bound, uncut, in half 
green-morocco. The plates measure 27 in. X 22 in.; they are colored 
(especially as regards the landscape accessories of the water-bird plates) 
more skillfully than in the smaller folio issue. 

Of the smaller, royal folio issue, I have located the following copies: — 

1. Library of the Zodlogical Society of London. A perfect copy, which 
I collated May 8, 1902 (see ‘The Auk,’ April, 1903, p. 237). 

2. Library of Cambridge University. This copy was bought in 1900 
for £2, 5s. from Richard Cameron, a book-dealer of Edinburgh, by Pro- 
fessor Alfred Newton of Magdalen College, Cambridge. From a letter 
which I received from Professor Newton in July, 1900, I learn that this 


Sion ol Correspondence. 625 


copy, although it contains the full number of pages and plates, is “‘by no 
means in good condition.’”’ It is bound in cloth and measures 21 in. & 164 
in. I assume that it came with the rest of Professor Newton’s library into 
the possession of Cambridge University on the death of the Professor. 

3. Library of the Arnold Arboretum, Harvard University, Jamaica 
Plain, Mass. Purchased for $200 from N. J. Bartlett & Co. of Boston in 
1911 by Mr. John E. Thayer and presented by him to the Arnold Arboretum. 
A perfect copy, bound in full purple morocco, gilt edges, 197 in. & 154 in. 

4. Library of John E. Thayer, Lancaster, Mass. Bought of N. J. 
Bartlett & Co., Boston, for $25. Perfect. copy, bound in half morocco. 
Plate 44 wants fig. 5 (Hudsonian Titmouse) and plate 61 wants two figures 
(Mangrove Hummingbirds). These figures were apparently added after 
this copy was printed off. 

5. Library of Samuel Henshaw, Cambridge, Mass. Bought of John 
Wheldon & Co., London, for £24, in July, 1907. Full red-morocco bind- 
ing, gilt edges, by W. H. Smith & Son, Strand, London. 20% in. X 152 in. 
A perfect copy and an early one, as plate 44 lacks the figure of the Hud- 
sonian Titmouse, and plate 61 the two figures of the Mangrove Humming- 
bird. This copy has the original printed dedication to the Earl of Airlee, 
dated Edinburgh, May, 1831. This leaf was cancelled by the later en- 
graved dedication to the same nobleman, which is also bound in this copy. 
On page ii is written “‘T. Thurlow, Esq., Horsham.” 

6. Library of Theodore N. Vail, Morristown, N. J. Perfect copy, 
half red-morocco, gilt edges. Formerly belonged to Mr. Frederic Gallatin, 
Jr., of New York. Catalogue of a Collection of Books on Ornithology in 
the Library of Frederic Gallatin, Jr., p. 139, New York, 1908. 

7. Library of H. C. Tuttle, Naugatuck, Conn. Bought of Quaritch 
in London, 1919, by N. J. Bartlett & Co., of Boston, and sold by them in 
June, 1919, to Mr. Tuttle for $200. Bound in half dark-green morocco, 
gilt edges, 21 in. X 16 in. Plate 112 is a hand-made copy of the original. 
This copy, like Nos. 4 and 5, is an early impression before the three figures 
were added to plates 44 and 61. 

8. Library of Walter Faxon, Lexington, Mass. Bought of William J. 
Gerhard, Philadelphia book-dealer, June 20, 1904, for $25. Mr. Gerhard 
imported it from Brussels at a cost of $18.50. Bound in half calf, gilt edges, 
202 X 164 in. Wants four plates (1, 19, 104, 124) and has been roughly 
used by some former owner. Contains a pencil autograph ‘Rich. Darling,”’ 
and an embossed book-plate with the initials I C and an armorial crest,— 
a wivern segreant azure. 

9. Library of Mrs. R. E. Hopkins, Tarrytown, N. Y. This copy 
fetched $31 at Bangs’s auction-sale in New York, Nov. 23, 1896. It came 
under the same auctioneer’s hammer again on Feb. 23, 1897, when it went 
to Major R. E. Hopkins for $34. It was shown to me in 1901 by the 
widow of Major Hopkins. An imperfect copy, lacking title-page, dedica- 
tion, index, and thirty-seven plates. It has one of the original-part 
wrappers bound in (see ‘The Auk,’ April, 1903, p. 238). 


626 Correspondence. es 


10. Library of Ruthven Deane, Chicago, Ill. A fragment, bought of 
Dodd, Mead & Co., New York, Nov. 1, 1909, consisting of the first five 
parts of five plates each, in the paper wrappers as issued. One of the 
wrappers was given by Mr. Deane to Mr. John E. Thayer. 

The fate of the following three copies I have not been able to learn: — 

In Bernard Quaritch’s General Catalogue, London, 1880, p. 375, the 
first six parts of Brown’s “Illustrations,” consisting of thirty colored 
plates, royal folio, were offered for sale at £5. 

At a sale of Duke of Sutherland property by Sotheby, Wilkinson and 
Hodge, London, Nov. 19-24, 1906, a complete copy was sold, royal folio, 
half morocco, gilt tops, for £7. It was bought by Walford Bros., book- 
dealers in London, but whether on a private order or not I do not know. 

In N. J. Bartlett’s Catalogue No. 64, Boston, November, 1915, a copy 
was advertised at $170, half morocco, uncut, 123 colored plates (there 
should be 124). 

This work was issued in parts, each part containing five plates. The 
first part appeared in 1831, price, 15s., colored, 10s. 6d., plain, for the 
royal folio edition; £1, 1 s. for the elephant folio. By the time part IX. 
was published the price per part had risen to £1, 1s., colored, 12s. plain, 
for the regular edition; and to £1, 11s., 6d., colored, 15s. plain, for the 
elephant folio. I know of no copies with plain plates. 

Capt. Brown’s ‘Illustrations of the Game Birds of North America,” 
which is nothing but sixteen plates of the larger work, issued with a differ- 
ent title-page, dated 1834 (see ‘The Auk,’ April, 1903, pp. 238-240), is an 
even scarcer book. I can locate only three copies of it, viz.: — 

1. Library of Walter Faxon, Lexington, Mass. I bought this in a 
bookshop in Birmingham, June 2, 1902, for £1, 10s. It is bound in cloth, 
uncut; the plates measure 213 in. X 163 in. It contains the book-plate 
of C. I. Anderson, and the autograph signature of A. A. Anderson, Stoke 
Newington. The water-marks on the plates of this copy are dated 1835, 
indicating that these plates were published a year later than the year on 
the title-page. 

2. Library of John E. Thayer, Lancaster, Mass. Bought of John 
Wheldon & Co., London (Cat. 34, 1906, £5, 18s.), by N. J. Bartlett & Co., 
of Boston, Mass., and sold by the latter to Mr. Thayer. Royal folio, 
cloth boards. 

3. John Crerar Library, Chicago, Ill. For the knowledge of this copy 
I am indebted to Mr. Ruthven Deane. He informs me that it measures 
21 im: X 163 im: 

A copy of the “Illustrations of the Game Birds” was listed in R. H. 
Porter’s Catalogue of the late Rev. H. B. Tristram’s Library, 1906, £3, 3s., 
but I do not known where this copy now rests. 


Yours very truly, 


WALTER Faxon. 
Lexington, Mass., August 12, 1919. 


Vol. Bien | 


1919 Correspondence. 627 


Feeding of Grackles. 


‘Epiror or ‘THe AUK’: 


In ‘Bird Genealogy’ (Auk, X XIX, 1912, p. 294), I called attention to 
an interesting habit of the Bronzed Grackle of picking up food from the 
water, after the manner of a Herring Gull. ‘A Grackle will hover close 
to the water its head to the wind, and then suddenly drop, and with its 
bill pick up from the surface some morsel as gracefully as a Gull. This 
they do at times without wetting their plumage; at other times the bill, 
feet and tail are immersed, while I once saw a Grackle splash his whole 
body into the water and entirely immerse his head, to emerge without 
difficulty, carrying in his bill what appeared to be a small silvery fish.” 

This latter incident I witnessed at the Charles River Basin in Boston. 
Since then this habit has become more common among the Grackles in this 
locality, and at almost any hour of the day during this last June, one may 
see several Grackles dipping into the water for fish. The fish are brought 
to the coping of the Esplanade and eaten, or taken away to feed, no doubt, 
the young or mate. With the kind assistance of a Park policeman who 
succeeded in frightening off the birds before they could seize and carry off 
the fish from the coping, I secured three of these fish. They proved to be 
the three-spined Stickleback, Gasterosteus aculeatus. 

Whether this is a new habit acquired by a small community of Grackles, 
or whether it is an old and universal habit I am anxious to learn, and it is 
for this reason that I am sending this letter to ‘The Auk.’ In either case 
the matter seems to me to be of exceeding interest to the student of habits 
and of evolution. Hitherto I have been unable to find any reference in 
literature to the habit. I shall be much obliged for any light on the subject. 

On several occasions I have noticed that the fish were alive and active 
when the Grackles deposited them on the coping. 


Cuarues W. TOWNSEND. 
Boston, Mass. 


628 Notes and News. (aes 


NOTES AND NEWS. 


AMERICAN Ornithology suffered an irreparable loss in the death of 
William Brewster on July 11, last. While it was generally known that his 
health had been failing for several years past, few outside the circle of his 
most intimate friends knew that his condition was critical, and the news of 
his death came with the shock of an unexpected blow. 

Great as were his attainments as an ornithologist it was not these alone 
that gained him the wide recognition that he received. His fair and 
impartial judgment of all questions that came before him created a pro- 
found and widespread respect for his opinion; his keen and unconcealed 
delight in everything out of doors, be it bird, mammal, or plant, was con- 
tagious and inspiring; while his uniform courtesy and kindliness to young 
student and master alike, endeared him to all with whom he came in 
contact. 

To the American Ornithologists’ Union the death of Wiliam Brewster 
is a calamity. To him more than to anyone else was due the founding of 
the Nuttall Ornithological Club, from which sprang the A. O. U., and both 
organizations throughout their existence have profited from his counsel 
and advice in all matters concerned with their activities. So closely 
indeed was he associated with the life of the Union that we find it almost 
impossible to conceive of a meeting of the Council without Mr. Brewster’s 
presence. His influence was always toward the best effort and the highest 
ideals, both in scientific work and in personal conduct, and association 
with him was always stimulating and improving. 

Probably he himself never realized the part he played in shaping the 

_ ornithological activities of others, and his influence upon the development 
of American ornithology cannot easily be measured. 

The president of the A. O. U. has appointed Mr. Henry W. Henshaw, 
Mr. Brewster’s lifelong friend, to prepare the biographical sketch which 
will be presented at the annual meeting of the Union in November, and 
which will appear in the January issue of ‘The Auk.’— W. 8. 


Motoyoshi Namrye of Tokyo, Japan, a Corresponding Fellow of the 
A. O. U., died May 24, 1918. He was born at Maruyama-Nishikata- 
machi, Hongo, Yeddo (Tokyo), February 15, 1854. He was a member of 
the faculty of Zoology in the Tokyo Educational Museum, and Assistant 
of the Zoological Institute, Science College, Imperial University of Tokyo, 
an honorary member of the Tokyo Zoological Society, and a councilor of 
the Ornithological Society of Japan. He was actively interested in birds, 
mammals, reptiles, and amphibia and published many interesting papers 
on these groups of vertebrates. Following are the principal places in 


oe Notes and News. ° 629 


Japan where he made collections, and as a result of these collections many 
important additions were made to our avifauna: The Province of Yamato 
on the island of Hondo in 1876, the Loo Choo Islands in 1886 and 1909, the 
Seven Islands of Idzu in 1887, and Tsushima in 1891. 

Four Japanese birds bear his name: Dryobates leucotos namiyei Stejneger, 
1886; Luscinia komadori namiyei (Stejneger), 1886; Chelidon javanica 
namiyei Stejneger, 1886; and Parus varius namiyet Kuroda, 1918.— 
NaGamicut Kuropa. ; 


Merritt WILuis. Buain, an Associate of the Union from 1910 to 1916, 
died at his home in Los Angeles, December 26, 1918, in the 25th year of his 
age. According to a brief notice in ‘The Condor’ for May, 1919, he was 
born at Oceanview, Calif., April 24, 1894, received his early education in 
San Francisco, and at the time of his death was a third-year student in the 
Detroit College of Medicine and Surgery. He was an enthusiastic orni- 
thologist, a member of the Cooper Ornithological Club and the Wilson 
Ornithological Club, and had a good collection of the birds and eggs of 
Southern California— T. 8. P. 


Leo Wixey of Palo Verde, Imperial Co., Calif., who was elected an 
Associate of the Union in 1917, died of pneumonia following an attack of 
influenza, at Shandon, Calif., October 31, 1918. Mr. Wiley was born at 
Silverton, Colo., September 20, 1890, and at the time of his death was 28 
years of age. He was the only son of A. P. Wiley and when four years old 
lost his mother. At an early age he developed a taste for natural history 
and when not in school spent much time in the company of his father in the 
wilds of Colorado and California. After a year with A. E. Colburn, the 
taxidermist of Los Angeles, he followed the trade of taxidermist at Palo 
Verde. During the Colorado River Expedition of 1910, Dr. Joseph 
Grinnell learned of young Wiley’s interest in natural history and induced 
him to report things of interest among the birds of the region. Asa result 
many specimens found their way to the Museum of Vertebrate Zoology at 
Berkeley, and some of his observations appeared in the columns of ‘The 
Condor.’ Among several notes of interest are his records of the breeding 
of the White-winged Dove, the Mexican Ground Dove, and Harris’ Hawk 
near Palo Verde. Of the last species four young were found in July, 1916, 
and a set of three eggs on April 5, 1917. Since his death his collection has 
been presented by his father to the Museum of Vertebrate Zoology at 
Berkeley, Calif., where it will be accessible and permanently preserved.— 
dbs Shee 


A COMMITTEE has been formed in England under the chairmanship of 
Lord Rothschild to establish a memorial to the late Frederick DuCane 
Godman, in acknowledgment of his lifelong devotion to the interests of 
natural history. The memorial will take the form, primarily, of a bronze 
tablet with medallion portraits of Mr. Godman and his friend and colla- 


630 Notes and News. (aur 


borator, the late Osbert Salvin, which is to be placed in the Natural History 
Museum at South Kensington. Any surplus over what may be required 
for the tablet will be added to a fund to be known as the ‘‘Godman Memo- 
rial Exploration Fund” for which the widow and daughters of Mr. Godman 
have subscribed £5,000, the proceeds to be devoted to the making of col- 
lections for the advancement of science and for the benefit of the Museum. 
This plan cannot be too highly endorsed and we trust that the necessary 
subscriptions will soon be secured. Salvin and Godman will ever be 
remembered in America by their classic ‘Biologia Centrali-Americana,’ 
while both were Honorary Fellows of the A.O.U. Subscriptions should be 
*sent to C. KE. Fagan, Honorary Treasurer of the Godman Memorial, Natural 
History Museum, Cromwell Road, London, 8. W. 7. 


Mr. P. WytsMan, editor of ‘Genera Avium,’ has issued a circular soliciting 
additional subscribers to this worthy work. Additional support is abso- 
lutely necessary on account of the greatly increased cost of publication. 
He may be addressed Quatre-Bras, Tervueren (Belgium) and circulars and 
sample plate will be sent upon application. 


INDEXES TO ORNITHOLOGICAL LITERATURE — JOURNALS.— A large pro- 
portion of modern ornithological literature appears in the form of short 
articles and notes in journals or other periodical publications. These are 
usually indexed on completion of the volume in which they are published, 
but as the series increases consultation of the annual indexes becomes so 
burdensome that few readers take the time necessary to run through many 
years. Thus the contents are apt to become practically lost unless made 
available through the publication of good general indexes. The recent 
appearance of the ‘Second Ten-Year Index to the Condor’ and the plans 
now being made for another decennial ‘Index of The Auk,’ suggest the 
importance of more attention to this feature of ornithological publication 
and more careful consideration of what has already been accomplished in 
rendering accessible the ever-increasing mass of ornithological papers. 

Among English serials the ‘Proceedings of the Zoological Society of 
London,’ one of the oldest scientific publications now in existence which 
publishes papers on birds, was begun in 183) and has thus far pub- 
lished 7 general indexes for its 80 or more volumes — the first in 1847 
and one every ten years from 1860 to 1910. ‘The Ibis,’ now in its 61st 
volume, began in 1859 and has appeared in series of six volumes each. It 
has the distinction of being one of the most frequently indexed scientific 
journals, with at least four sets of indexes — an annual one at the end of 
each volume, a six-year subject index at the close of each series, a general 
index of genera and species at the end of each third series, and a general 
subject-index for the first 36 volumes. Of the general indexes three have 
been published for series 1-3, 4-6, and 7-9, covering the years 1859-1912; 
but only one general subject-index has thus far appeared and this includes 
the first six series from 1859 to 1894. For later years it is necessary to 
consult the indexes at the end of each series. In addition a list of the 


; 
| 
P 
is 
‘ 
, 
{ 


Vol OT Notes and News. 63 1 


‘Coloured Plates of Birds’ from 1859 to 1917 has appeared in the volume 
for 1918, pp. 10-51. ‘Stray Feathers’ has had a general index provided 
for its eleven volumes, 1873-1888, and ‘Novitates Zoologice’ in a recent 
number (vol. X XI, p. 457) has a list of the new species described in the 
first 20 volumes. 

Of the German serials at least three are provided with general indexes. 
The earliest is ‘Naumannia,’ which has an index to six of its eight volumes 
for the years 1850-1856. The ‘Journal fiir Ornithologie,’ founded in 1853, 
has issued three general indexes — one for the 15 years 1853-1867, a second 
for the 26 years 1868-1893, and the third for the 20 years 1894-1913 — thus 
including 61 of its 67 volumes. The second index, containing 296 pages, 
appeared in the first quarter of 1894, less than three months after the com- 
pletion of the last volume indexed, and established a record for prompt 
publication that is not likely to be surpassed. The third periodical, the 
‘Ornithologische Monatsschrift,’ established in 1876, has at least two 
general indexes issued at 12-year intervals for the years 1876-1887 and 
1888-1899. 

Of the American journals, several have thus far been provided with 
general indexes. ‘The Auk’ has two, one covering the 25 years, 1876-1900, 
and including the eight volumes of the ‘Bulletin of the Nuttall Ornithologi- 
cal Club’ in addition to the first seventeen of ‘The Auk’; and the second, 
a decennial index for the years 1901-1910. Another decennial index for 
the volumes from 1911 to 1920 should be prepared in the near future. 
‘Bird Lore,’ now in its 21st volume, has a general index to the first 15 
volumes, and ‘The Condor,’ also in its 21st volume, has issued two decen- 
nial indexes for the volumes down to the close of 1918. In this con- 
nection mention should perhaps be made of Howe’s ‘Faunal Index to 
the Ornithologist and Oologist,’ volumes I-XVIII, which appeared in 
‘Contributions to North American Ornithology,’ vol. I, 1901-1904. This 
is incomplete, but includes the states from Alabama to New Mexico. 

No general indexes have been provided for ‘British Birds,’ ‘The Emu,’ 
the ‘Ornithologische Monatsberichte,’ ‘Cassinia,’ the ‘Wilson Bulletin,’ 
and certain other ornithological journals, and consequently readers must 
consult each volume to ascertain the contents. In the case of the eleven 
journals above mentioned it is possible by consulting about 25 general 
indexes to gain ready access to notes and observations scattered in more 
than 300 volumes containing many thousands of pages.— T. 8. P. 


Wuere AMERICAN ORNITHOLOGISTS Rest. — Mt. Vernon, Va., and 
Sleepy Hollow Cemetery in Concord, Mass., have become famous as the last 
resting places of some of America’s leading men. George Washington’s 
tomb at Mt. Vernon is the mecca of many a traveler from abroad who 
visits the National Capital, and the graves of Emerson, Hawthorne, Thoreau, 
and others in Sleepy Hollow are frequently visited and widely known. 
Botanists often place on record references to the spots which mark the 
graves of their departed men of genius, but ornithologists apparently have 
given less attention to such details. Few persons can tell the location of 


632 Notes and News. ee 


the last resting places of many of our leading ornithologists and fewer 
still have visited the spots associated so closely with the history of American 
ornithology: Arlington National Cemetery, containing the stones of 
Bendire and Coues; Oak Hill in Georgetown, the resting place of Baird, 
Gill, Jouy, and Kidder; the Old Swedes’ Churchyard in Philadelphia, with 
its graves of Alexander Wilson and George Ord; Trinity Church Ceme- 
tery in New York near the old Audubon home, where John James Audubon, 
his wife, and two sons, and George N. Lawrence are buried; and Mount 
Auburn Cemetery in Cambridge, the burial place of Thomas M. Brewer, 
William Brewster, Henry Bryant, Samuel Cabot, Jr., James C. Merrill, and 
Henry A. Purdie — these and several others that might be mentioned are 
all spots of special ornithological interest. 

To facilitate the location of these places by those who may be interested, 
a list has been prepared, containing such data as are now available regard- 
ing the graves of 35 of America’s leading students of birds. More than 
half of these ornithologists were former members of the A. O. U. Their 
graves are located as definitely as possible and, with the data here given, 
may be readily found. All except four or five are marked with stone 
monuments: 


JoHN JAMES AUDUBON, 1785-1851. 

New York City — Trinity Church Cemetery, 155th St. and Broadway 

(immediately in rear of the church). 
Joun BacuMan, 1790-1874. 

Charleston, S. C.—St. John’s Lutheran Church, cor. Charles and 

Clifford Streets (in front of the altar). 
SPENCER FULLERTON Barrp, 1823-1887. 

Washington, D. C.— Oak Hill Cemetery, Georgetown, Baird-Churchill 
vault, facing Rock Creek. 

Fostpr ELLENBOROUGH LASCELLES Brat, 1840-1916. 

Beltsville, Prince George Co., Md., about 10 miles northeast of Washing - 
ton, D, C.— St. John’s P. E. Churchyard. 

CHARLES Emit BENprIRE, 1836-1897. 

Washington, D. C.— Arlington National Cemetery, Va. (north of main 
road betwéen F't. Myer entrance and Arlington Mansion, and 100 yards 
east of the gate). 

GrorGcE Auacustus BoarpMAN, 1818-1901. 

St. Stephen, N. B.— Rural Cemetery. 

FRANK Bo uss, 1856-1894. 
Cambridge, Mass.— Forest Hills Cemetery, Lot 2368, Thistle Path 
(unmarked). 
THomas Mayo Brewer, 1814-1880. 
Cambridge, Mass.— Mt. Auburn Cemetery, Lot 792, Yarrow Path. 
Wituiam Brewster, 1851-1919. 
Cambridge, Mass.— Mt. Auburn Cemetery, Lot 1099, Larch Avenue. 


Moh ee Notes and News. 633 


Tuomas BrinceEs, 1807-1865 (First resident California ornithologist). 
San Francisco, Calif— Laurel Hill Cemetery, Lone Mountain, South 
Ridge, Tier 58, Lot 24 (unmarked 1917). 
Henry Bryant, 1820-1867. 
Cambridge, Mass.— Mt. Auburn Cemetery, Lot 391, Alder Path. 
SAMUEL Casort, JR., 1815-1885. 
Cambridge, Mass.— Mt. Auburn Cemetery, Lot 526, Rose Path. 
JOHN CassIN, 1813-1869. 
Philadelphia, Pa. — North Laurel Hill Cemetery, Ridge Ave., near 
Schuylkill River, Lot 97, Sec. J. 
Wetts Woopsripce Cooke, 1858-1916. 
Ripon, Wis. 
JAMES GRAHAM Cooper, 1830-1902. 
Oakland, Calif— Mountain View Cemetery, Plot 31, Lot 15. 
Exvuiotr Cougs, 1842-1899. 
Washington, D. C.— Arlington National Cemetery, Va. (north of main 
road between Ft. Myer entrance and Arlington Mansion). 
DanteL Grraup Exuiot, 1835-1915. 
New York City — Woodlawn Cemetery. 
WILLIAM GAMBEL, 1819?-1849. 
Rose’s Bar, Feather River, Calif.— (grave obliterated.) 
Turopore Nicnonas Giiy, 1837-1914. 
Washington, D. C.— Oak Hill Cemetery, Georgetown, Lot in eastern 
part of Cemetery near Rock Creek. 
Jacos Post Grraup, JR., 1811-1870. 
New York City — Marble Cemetery, Second St. (Giraud vault, No. 167). 
Pierre Louis Jovy, 1856-1894. 
Washington, D. C.— Oak Hill Cemetery, Georgetown, South Border, 
Lot 1, Site 62 (unmarked). 
JEROME Henry Kipper, 1842-1889. 
Washington, D. C.— Oak Hill Cemetery, Georgetown. 
Lupwia KuM.iEn, 1853-1902. 
Milton, Wis. 
GrEoRGE NEwsBoLD LAWRENCE, 1806-1895. 
New York City — Trinity Church Cemetery, 155th St. and Broadway 
(Lawrence vault, west of Broadway). 
GrorGE ARCHIBALD McCatu, 1802-1868. 
Philadelphia, Pa.— Christ’s Church. 
Epaar ALEXANDER Mrarns, 1856-1916. 
Washington, D. C.— Washington Biologists’ Field Club, Plummer 
Island, Potomac River (about 9 miles above Washington). 
James CusHina MbmrriLL, 1853-1902. 
Cambridge, Mass.— Mt. Auburn Cemetery, Lot 3487, Snowdrop Path. 
GEORGE OrpD, 1781-1866. 
Philadelphia Pa.— Old Swedes’ (Gloria Dei) Churchyard. 


634 Notes and News. awe 


DanieL WEBSTER PRENTISS, 1843-1899. 

Washington, D. C._— Glenwood Cemetery, Sec. 4, Lot 6. 
Henry Auacustus Purpig, 1840-1911. 

Cambridge, Mass.— Mt. Auburn Cemetery, Lot 1484, Mimosa Path. 
Witu1am Le GranGce Raupu, 1851-1907. 

Utica, N. Y.— Forest Hill Cemetery. 
THoMAsS Say, 1787-1834. 

New Harmony, Ind.— Main St. (in rear of house in which he died). 
Joun Kirk Townsenp, 1809-1851. 

Washington, D. C.— Congressional Cemetery, Range 34, Site 201. 
Braprorp Torrey, 1843-1912. 

South Weymouth, Mass. 
ALEXANDER WILSON, 1766-1813. 

Philadelphia, Pa.— Old Swedes’ (Gloria Dei) Churchyard. 

T. S. PaumMmr. 


ComPLETE Sets or ‘THe AuK.’—A recent survey made by the Secre- 
tary indicates that complete sets of ‘The Auk,’ including the two general 
indexes, are comparatively rare and are becoming more valuable year by 
year. While there is no complete list of such sets at present available it is 
probable that the total number does not exceed 150 and the total of those 
actually located falls considerably below this figure. Nearly half of those 
now known are in public libraries and nearly 25 per cent of those in private 
libraries are in Washington, D. C. As time goes on the number in public 
libraries will increase and the number of private sets will tend to decrease. 
During recent years several sets have been destroyed by fire, at least two 
having been burned in the San Francisco fire of 1906 and another in the 
fire in the library of Wellesley College a few years ago. Members will do 
well to look over their sets and secure any missing volumes while still 
obtainable. Owners of complete sets who have not already done so are 
requested to communicate with the Secretary in order that the record of 
such sets may be made as accurate as possible— T. 8. P. 


Mr. Ropert CusHMAN Murpny, of the Brooklyn Museum, sailed on 
August 23 for Peru, where he will be engaged for several months in mak- 
ing investigations of the birds of the coastal islands. Moving pictures will 
be made of some of the great colonies of Pelicans, Cormorants, and other 
sea birds of that region. 


Lisur. Ernest G. Hour left in July for Sao Paulo, Brazil, where he 
expects to be located during the next three years. He will be engaged in 
private business but will devote his spare time to collecting and studying 
birds and mammals. 


THE SMITHSONIAN AFRICAN EXPEDITION, which will cross the continent 
from south to north, following the Cape to Cairo route, reached Cape Town, 


ie een Notes aud News. 635 


South Africa, about the middle of August. The expedition, which is un- 
der the direction of Edmund Heller, will devote special attention to making 
moving pictures. Mr. H. C. Raven, who returned recently from Celebes, 
will collect birds and mammals. After working in the vicinity of Cape 
Town, the party will proceed northward to the Falls of the Zambesi and 
Rhodesia. 


AccorDING to the July ‘Ibis,’ two Foreign Fellows of the Union are in 
Spain thissummer. Dr. Ernest Hartert is collecting on the mainland and 
Mr. H. F. Witherby is working on the Balearic Islands. 


Mr. H.S. Swartu and Mr. Joseph Dixon have been working this summer 
in southeastern Alaska in the interests of the Museum of Vertebrate 
Zoology. They left Berkeley in May, expecting to be absent about four 
months. Their route lies in the vicinity of Wrangel and extends up the 
Stikine River into the interior, in the vicinity of Telegraph Creek. 


From the July ‘Condor’ we learn that A. B. Howell has been touring 
northern California and Oregon, visiting the type localities of certain birds 
and mammals; H. G. White and Richard M. Hunt are collecting in the 
Santa Lucia Mountains in southern Monterey County, Calif., for the 
Museum of Vertebrate Zoology; and Lawrence Huey has been in the field 
in the northern Sierra Nevada in the interests of Donald R. Dickey. 


Tue Denver Museum has had a party in southern Louisiana this sum- 
mer, obtaining material for several habitat groups from some of the bird 
colonies on the coast. 


Tue Fifth Oological Dinner in London was announced for September 
10. This dinner, to which naturalists interested in Oology, whether 
members of the B. O. U. or not are invited, has become a regular annual 
meeting in September. Its objects are “to furnish opportunities of dis- 
cussing Oology, exhibiting rare eggs and generally stimulating investiga- 
tionin the branch of science.” An exhibit of the eggs of Warblers was the 
feature of the meeting this year. 


Tue editor of ‘The Auk’ was engaged in field work in the Chiricahua 
Mountains, Arizona, from May 19 to August 1, at the hospitable camp 
established there by J. Eugene Law, Business Manager of ‘The Condor.’ 
His absence necessitated the printing of the July ‘Auk’ before he left 
Philadelphia, and will account for certain delays in publishing and acknowl- 
edging contributions. 


Members intending to present papers at the next annual meeting, to be 
held in New York City, November 11-13, are requested to notify the 
Secretary before November 5 as to the titles of their communications and 


636 Notes and News. [oot 


the length of time required for their presentation. In order to allow time 
for discussion, which is one of the principal objects of the meeting, papers 
which are not illustrated should be limited to 30 minutes or less. A special 
invitation is extended to Associates to present papers and take part in the 
discussions. The meeting promises to be one of the best ever held. We 
cannot too strongly urge all members to be present, and this reminder is 
especially directed at those who have not previously attended these 
gatherings. 


oo 


INDEX TO VOLUME XXXVI. 


|New generic, specific and subspecific names are printed in heavy face type.] 


ACANTHIS, 62, 80. 

hornemanni exilipes, 272. 

linaria, 255. 

]. linaria, 521. 

1. exilipes, 272. 

Acanthiza nana dawsoniana, 143. 

pusilla peroni, 310. 
Acanthopneuste borealis kennicotti, 

407. 
Accipiter beniensis, 443. 

cooperl, 52. 

gentilis atricapillus, 613. 

nisus nisus, 510. 

velox, 15, 52, 61, 400." 
Accipitride, 569. 
Acmonorhynchus affinis, 442. 
Acrocephalus schasnobenus, 500. 
Actitis hypoleucas, 512. 

macularia, 12, 61, 348, 399. 
AXchmophorus occidentalis, 7, 64, 

264. 
Aigialitis meloda, 39, 399, 517, 566. 

microrhynchus, 559. 

nivosa, 39, 399. 

semipalmata, 52, 399. 
Agithalos caudatus, 501. 

c. pyrenaicus, 310. 
Aipyornis maximus, 611. 
Atstrelata fisheri, 271. 

gularis, 267. 

scalaris, 271. 

Agelaius icterocephalus, 197. 

pheeniceus, 197. 

. arctolegus, 269. 

. floridanus, 54, 402. 

. fortis, 253. 

. megapotamus, 611. 

. phaeniceus, 253, 387. 


4a} tre} Nol hep} 


637 


thilius, 197. 
tricolor, 197. 

Agyrtria fimbriata fimbriata, 221. 
tobaci, 221. 

Aix sponsa, 51. 

Ajaia ajaja, 565, 566. 

Alabama, birds of, 584. 

Alabama Bird Day Book, noticed, 
606. 

Alaska, birds of, 57-64. 

Alauda arvensis arvensis, 508. 

minor, 469. 

Albatross, Galapagos, 370-372. 

Alberta, birds of, 1-21, 248-265,424. 

Alcedo coltarti, 310. 

grandis, 442. 
ispida ispida, 509. 
megalia, 442. 
meninting, 310. 
scintillans, 310. 

Alcella, 596. 

Alexander, E. Gordon, hybrid war- 
bler in Missouri, 579. 

Alle, 596. 

Allen, Francis H., the Short-eared 
Owl in Massachusetts in summer, 
109; the ewsthetic sense in birds 
as illustrated by the Crow, 112- 
113; the Blue-winged Warbler 
near Boston, 292; the evolution 
of bird song, 528-536. 

Allen, Glover M., three interesting 
Great Horned Owls from New 
England, 367-370. 

Alterapus, 129. 

Aluco pratincola, 400. 

Amazilia, 302. 

Amblyrhamphus holosericeus, 197. 


638 


American Ornithologists’ Union, 
notice of thirty-sixth stated meet- 
ing of, 90-99; announcement of 
thirty-seventh stated meeting, 
453, 635; geographical distribu- 
tion of membership, 323; life 
members of, 157. 

American Society of Mammalogists, 
notice of organization, 451. 

Amizilis, 302. 

Ammodramus savannarum bimacu- 
latus, 287. 

Anabazenops variegaticeps, 273. 

Anas boschas, 313, 616. 

fulvigula fulvigula, 397. 
penelope, 471. 

platyrhynchos, 8, 50, 397, 511. 
rubripes, 50. 

rubripes tristis, 560. 
superciliosa perena, 599. 
undulata, 612. 

Andrews, Roy Chapman, personal 
mention, 321. 

Andriopsar gularis gularis, 196. 

g. tamaulipensis, 196. 
g. yucatanensis, 196. 

Anhinga anhinga, 283. 

Anser albifrons, 10. 

Anseranas semipalmata, 562. 

Anthus rubescens, 56, 63, 262, 404, 

406. 
spinoletta Japonicus, 443. 
s. rubescens, 406. 
spraguel, 262. 
trivialis trivialis, 507. 
Antrostomus carolinensis, 386, 401. 
vociferus vociferus, 519. 
Aphelocoma californica oocleptica, 
269. 
c. obscura, 272. 
c. woodhousei, 272. 
obscura, 272. 
woodhouseu, 272. 
Apus apus apus, 508. 
Aquila chrysaetos, 18, 61, 265, 293, 
421. 


Index. 


[oer 


Aquilide, 569. 

Ara chloroptera, 131. 

Aramides cajanea grahami, 309. 

Arboricola rufogularis annamensis, 

612. 
brunneipectus albigula, 612. 
Archibuteo, 282, 420. 
ferrugineus, 17. 
lagopus 17. 
1. sanctijohannis, 61,°568. 
Archilochus, 250. 
colubris, 37, 401. 
Ardea cinerea, 510. 
herodias, 11, 264. 
h. herodias, 51, 398. 
‘Ardea,’ reviewed, 143, 616. 
Arenaria interpres morinella, 105, 
400. 
Argentina, birds of, 438. 
Aristonetta, 267, 462. 
valisineria, 267. 

Arkansas, birds of, 71, 251. 

Arnold, W. W.; maggot infested 
birds, 147-148. 

Arremon rubrirostris, 602. 

Asio flammeus, 20, 40, 109, 284, 400. 

f. breviauris, 304. 

f. bogotensis, 304. 

f. sanfordi, 304. 

wilsonianus, 20, 70, 109, 283. 
Astragalinus psaltria mexicanus, 

469. 

tristis tristis, 255, 402. 
Astur atricapillus, 15. 

a. atricapillus, 293. 

tachiro tenebrosus, 443. 

‘Audubon Bulletin, The.’ noticed, 
606. 

Audubon, J. J., bibliography of, 
372-380; note on his Labrador 
trip, 424; portrait of, 617. 

‘Auk, The,’ complete sets of, 634. 

Australia, birds of, 129. 299, 418, 
604, 661. 

Automolus infuscatus, 219. 

cervicalis, 219. 


Vol. aoe | 
1919 


leucophthalmus bangsi, 540. 
sclateri, 119. 
“Avicultural Magazine,’ The, re- 
viewed, 141, 310, 614. 
Avocet, American, 12. 
Aythya, 463. 


Bzxovorpuvs, bicolor, 56, 524. 

Bagg, Aaron C., Arctic Three-toed 
Woodpecker at Southampton, 
Mass., 421. 

Bailey, Florence Merriam, In memo- 
rium: Olive Thorne Miller, 163-— 
169. 

Bailey, Vernon, and Florence M., 
review of their ‘Wild Animals of 
Glacier National Park,’ 434. 

Baird, Cassin and Lawrence, ‘ Birds 
of North America,’ 428-4380. 

Baldpate, 9, 277. 

Ball, Alice E., review of her ‘A 
Year with the Birds,’ 435. 

Bangs, Outram, notice of recent 
papers by, 3804; personal men- 
tion, 452. 

Bangs, Outram, and _ Penard, 
Thomas E., review of their ‘Some 
Critical Notes on Birds,’ 601. 

Bangsia, 539. 

arcel ares, 539. 

a. ceruleiugularis, 539. 
aureocincta, 539. 
edwardsi, 539. 
melanochlamys, 539. 
rothsechildi, 539. 

Barbour, T., Evening Grosbeak 
about Beverly Farms, Mass., 572. 

Barnes, Claude T., Roseate Spoon- 
bill in Utah, 565. 

Bartramia longicauda, 12, 265, 516, 
567. 

Basileuterus belli belli, 469. 
culocivorus brasheru, 469. 
Beebe, William, review of his ‘A 
Monograph of the Pheasants,’ 
119-125; review of his ‘Jungle 


Index. 


639 


Peace,’ 130; review of his 
‘Tropical Wild Life,’ 217-225; 
personal mention, 321. 

Bent, A. C., geographical varia- 
tion in the Black-throated Loon, 


238-242; review of his ‘Life 
Histories of North American 
Birds. Diving Birds Pygopodes,’ 
593-595. 


Bergtold, W. H., the Crow in Colo- 
rado, 198-205. 

Bhringa remifer peracensis, 310. 

Bicknell, Eugene P., the Short- 
eared Owl breeding in Massa- 
chusetts, ‘Bird Notes and News’ 
noticed, 606. 

‘Bird-Lore,’ reviewed, 
439, 610. 

Bittern, American, 11, 44, 100. 

Blackbird, 498. 

Brewer’s, 254. 
Red-winged, 253, 387. 
Rusty, 42, 62, 254. 
Yellow-headed, 253, 520. 

Blackeap, 500, 

Blackwelder, Eliot, notes on the 
summer birds of the upper Yukon 
region, Alaska, 57-64. 

Blain, Merrill Willis, obituary notice 
of, 629, 

Blasipus, 596. 

Bluebird, 56, 342, 405, 473, 524. 

Mountain, 263. 

Bobolink, 342, 430. 

Bob-white, Florida, 400. 

Bogardus, Charlotte, Upland Plover 
in New York, 567. 

Bolivia, birds of, 438, 599. 

Bombycilla cedrorum, 259, 523. 

garrula, 259. 
Bonasa umbellus, 138, 264, 517. 
u. umbellus, 

Botaurus lentiginosus, 11. 

Bourne, Thos. L., notes on m gra- 
tory Anatide and Limicolei from 
western New York, 102-104; 


138, 307, 


640 


two recent records of the Horned 
Lark in western New York, 570. 

Bowdish, B.8., see Philipp, P. B. 

Brachyspiza capensis, 610. 

Branta canadensis, 10, 515. 

ce. hutchinsi, 61. 

Brasil, Louis, obituary notice of, 449. 

Brewster, William, notice of death 
of, 628. 

‘British Birds,’ reviewed, 141, 310, 
441, 613. 

British Columbia, birds of, 64-74, 
424. 

British Guiana, 217-225, 564. 

British Ornithologists’ Club, review 
of the ‘Bulletin’ of the, 141, 310, 
612. 

Brooks, W. Sprague, two interesting 
additions to the collection of the 
Boston Society of Natural His- 
tory, 589; Wood Ibis in Massa- 
chusetts, 565. 

Brotogeris ferrugineifrons, 110. 

Brown, Nathan Clifford, Evening 
Grosbeaks, at Lakewood, N. J., 
573. 

Brown, Thomas, illustrations to 
Wilson’s Ornithology, 623. 

Bryant, Harold C., see Grinnell, 
Joseph. 

Bubo virginianus, 21, 265. 

v. heterocnemis, 367-368. 
v. saturatus, 62. 

v. subarcticus, 369. 

Vv. virginianus, 53, 519. 

Vv. wapacuthu, 368-369. 

Bucco maculatus, 286. 

Buceros semigaleatus, 443. 

Buffle-head, 10. 

Bullfinch, 506. 

Bunker, C. D., Harris’s Hawk 
(Parabuteo unicinctus harrist) in 
Kansas, 283. 

Bunting, Cirl, 507. 

Common, 507. 
Indigo, 408. 


Index. les 


Painted, 389, 403. 

Reed, 507. 

Snow, 38, 473, 484. 
Burleigh, Thomas D., bird life in 

south-western France, 497-513. 

Buteo, 61, 569. 

abbreviatus, 568. 

albicaudatus, ° 567. 

augur, 420. 

borealis borealis, 15, 52. 

b. calurus, 16, 67. 

b. krideri, 16. 

buteo buteo, 510. 

desertorum, 290, 420. 

ferox, 420. 

jakal archeri, 310. 

lagopus lagopus, 420. 

leucocephalus, 420. 

lineatus alleni, 52. 

platypterus, 53, 265, 485, 568. 

p. iowensis, 272. 

swainsoni, 17, 69, 517. 
Buteonide, 569. 
Buthraupis, 536-540. 

cucullata cucullata, 538. 

c. eyanonota, 538. 

c. gigas, 538. 

c. saturata, 538. 

montana, 538. 
Butorides virescens, 588. 

v. virescens, 384. 
Buzzard, Common, 510. 

Turkey, 14. 


CacoMANTIS castaneiventris, 130. 
pyrrhophanus vidgeni, 300. 
rubricatus eyerl, 130. 

Calcarius lapponicus, 255, 521. 

1. alascensis, 62. 
ornatus, 255. 
pictus, 62. 

Calidris, 471, 613. 
alba, 596. 
leucophea, 596. 

‘California Fish and Game,’ noticed, 

607. 


Vol. roy all 
1919 


California, birds of, 437, 607. 
California Academy of Sciences, 
notice of, 320. 

Called to the Colors, 158. 
Callocalia vestita enigma, 303. 
Campephilus malherbii, 286. 
Campethera punctata, 303. 

punetuligera, 303. 
Canachites canadensis canace, 37. 
Canutus, 596. 
Canvas-back, 9, 397, 463. 
Caprimulgus affinis propinquus, 

303. 

binotatus, 304. 

europzeus europzeus, 508. 

eximlus, 129. 

macrurus, 129. 

nigrescens, 222. 
Cardellina rubrifrons, 469. 
Cardinal, 55, 388. 

Florida, 403. 
Cardinalis cardinalis cardinalis, 55, 

388. 

ce. floridanus, 403. 
Carduelis carduelis carduelis, 505. 
Carpodacus purpureus, 254. 

p. purpureus, 346, 521. 
Carpophaga, 312. 
Casarca ferruginea, 561. 
Casmerodius albus egretta, 557. 

a. albus, 558. 

a. syrmatophora, 558. 

a. timoriensis, 558. 
“Cassinia ’ for 1918, reviewed, 602. 
Cataponera abditiva, 303. 
Catbird, 262, 405, 479. 
Catharacta, 418. 

antarctica, 418. 

chilensis, 418. 

lonnbergi, 418. 

maccormicki, 418. 

skua, 418. 
Catharista urubu, 52, 400. 
Cathartes aura, 14, 313. 

a. septentrionalis, 517, 567. 
Catherpes mexicanus albifrons, 469. 


Index. 


641 


Catoptrophorus semipalmatus, 12. 
s. semipalmatus, 385. 
s. inornatus, 52, 399. 
Celebes, birds of, 302, 599. 
Celebesia abbotti, 303. 
Centropelma micropterum, 597, 610. 
Centurus carolinus, 53, 401. 
Cercomacra tyranina atrogularis, 
313. 
Certhia brachydactyla americana, 
273. 
familiaris, 502. 
f. americana, 56, 278. 
Ceryle americana americana, 218. 
aleyon, 248, 401. 
a. aleyon, 538, 62. 
Cettia cetti cetti, 500. 
Cheemepelia arthuri, 221. 
passerina terrestris, 385, 400. 
rufipennis, 221. 
talpacoti, 221. 
Chetura chapmani, 302. 
pelagica, 401. 
Cheturellus, 129. 
Cheturine, classification of, 129. 
Chaffinch, 506. 
Chamepetes, 439. 
goudotiul antioquiana, 309. 
Chamethlypis, 290. 
Chapman, F. M., review of his 
‘Our Winter Birds,’ 137. 
Charadrius, 596. 
cucullatus, 279. 
dominicus, 13, 265. 
dubius curonicus, 559. 
d. dubius, 559. 
hiaticula hiaticula, 512. 
rubricollis, 279. 
Charitonetta, albeola, 10. 
Chasiempis sanwichensis, 25. 
gayl, 26. 
sclateri, 27. 
Chat, Yellow-breasted, 397. 
Chaulelasmus streperus, 9, 50, 313, 
397, 616. 
Check-Lists, 155. 


642 


Cheliden urbica urbica, 504. 

Chen eczerulescens, 562. 
hyperboreus, 10, 262, 515, 562. 
rossi, 562. 

Chicago Ornithological Society, no- 

tice of, 158. 
Chickadee, 479, 524. 
Acadian, 43, 481. 
Carolina, 56, 590. 
Hudsonian, 63, 263. 
Long-tailed, 263. 
Short-tailed Mountain, 424. 

Chicken, Prairie, 13. 

Chlidonia, 596. 

Chlidonias, 596. 

Chloris chloris chloris, 505. 

Chloronerpes rubiginosus, 218. 
yucatanensis, 286. 

Chlorophoneus andarye, 613. 

Chondestes grammacus, 256. 

Chordeiles virginianus, 250. 

v. chapmani, 401. 
v. virginianus, 62, 519. 

Chroicocephalus, 596. 

Chubb, Charles, review of his 

‘Notes on Collections in the 
British Museum, from Ecuador, 


Peru, Bolivia and Argentina 
Part I,’ 438; Part IT, 599. 
Chubb, 8S. Harmsted, Nashville 


Warbler (Vermivora ruficapilla) 
in New York in winter, 293; the 
Cerulean Warbler in the Cats- 
kills, 582. 
Chuck-will’s-widow, 386, 401. 
Cinclodes neglectus, 89. 
Cinnyris ornata microleuca, 600. 
osea butleri, 140. 
Circus eruginosus, 510. 
cyaneus, 82, 510. 
ec. hudsonius, 82. 
hudsonius, 15, 37, 52, 61, 67, 
82, 400, 517. 
Cissilopha samblasiana nelsoni, 602. 
Cisticola erythrops roseires, 140. 
e. zwaiensis, 140. 


Index. 


(au 
Oct. 
Cistothorus stellaris, 524, 583. 
Clangula clangula americana, 37. 
Climacteris erythrops parsonsi, 441. 
Clypeicterus, 191. 
Cnemathraupis, 538. 

eximia chloronota, 538. 

e. eximia, 538. 

Cnemoscopus, 602. 

Coale, H. K., Magpie (Pica pica 
hudsonia) in northeastern Illinois, 
ales, 

Coceyzus americanus americanus, 

100, 386. 

Colaptes auratus, 250, 236, 
a. auratus, 53, 386, 401. 
a. borealis, 250. 
a. luteus, 62, 518, 570. 
cafer, 250. 
collaris, 236. 
hybridus, 236. 

Colinus virginianus floridanus, 400. 

Collinge, W. E., review of his papers 
on economic ornithology, 136; 
review of his ‘Some Further In- 
vestigation on the Food of Wild 
Birds,’ 609. 

Colombia, 439. 

Colorado, birds of, 198-205, 422. 

Columba palumbus palumbus, 511. 

plumbea plumbea, 217. 

Colymbus auritus, 7, 50, 60, 170- 

180, 264, 394. 
holbeelli, 7, 64. 
nigricollis, 7. 
Compsothlypide, 442. 
Compsothlypis americana ameri- 
cana, 390, 404. 
a. usnee, 43. 

‘Condor, The,’ reviewed, 138, 308, 
440, 611; notice of the Second Ten 
Year Index, 598. 

Connecticut, birds of, 104, 105, 114, 
158, 572. 

Coot, 103, 104, 398, 511. 

American, 11, 102. 

Cophixus, 313. 


Vol. oe al 
1919 


Coprotheres, 596. 

Coracornis raveni, 303. 

Cormorant, Double-crested, 8, 100, 

264, 514. 
Florida, 396, 597. 

Corvus affinis, 310, 312. 
americanus, 199. 
brachyrhynchus, 312, 520. 

b. brachyrhynchus, 112, 198- 
205, 252. 

b. caurinus, 84. 

b. hesperis, 84, 198. 

b. pascuus, 54. 

caurinus, 84. 

corax, 252. 

ce. europhilus, 269, 293. 

¢. principalis, 62, 572. 

cornix judaeus, 612. 

corone corone, 503, 609. 

frugivorus, 199. 

ossifragus, 54, 84, 402, 588. 

rhipidurus, 310. 

Cory, C. B., descriptions of new 
birds from South America, 88-89; 
new forms of South American 
birds and proposed new subgen- 
era, 273-276; three new birds 
from South America; 540-541. 

Coturnicops noveboracensis, 264. 

Cowbird, 253, 307, 474, 520, 588. 

Crandall, Lee S., Sarcidiornis sylvi- 
cola in Venezuela, 419. 

Crane, Little Brown, 61. 

Sandhill, 65, 264, 516. 
Whooping, 264. 

Crateropus tenebrosus claudei, 613. 

Creciscus coturniculus, 268. 
jamaicensis coturniculus, 268. 
viridis, 222. 

Creeper, Brown, 56, 482. 

Tree, 502. 
Crocethia, 613. 
Crossbill, 38. 

American, 255. 

Crow, 112, 252; 307, 473, 484, 520. 
Carrion, 503. 


Index. 


645 


Fish, 54, 402, 588. 
Florida, 54. 

Cryptoglaux acadica, 21. 

a. acadica, 518. 

Cryptolopha castaneiceps annemen- 

sis, 612. 
malcomsmithi, 612. 
nesophila, 303. 
tephrocephala occularis, 612. 
Crypturus, 223-225. 
garleppi affinis, 309. 
variegatus, 225. 

Cuckoo, 510. 

Black-billed, 477. 

Yellow-billed, 100, 386. 
Cuculus canorus bangsi, 442. 

c. canorus, 510. 

minor, 442. 

orientalis, 569. 

honoratus, 569. 

scolopaceus, 569. 

niger, 569. 

Culver, D. E., Duck Hawks winter- 
ing in the center of Philadelphia, 
108. 

Cureeus aterrimus, 197. 

Curlew, Long-billed, 13. 

Cyanerpes cyaneus cyaneus, 222. 

Cyanocitta cristata, 251. 

c. cristata, 387, 422, 572. 
ce. florincola, 54, 401. 
Cyanolaimus clemenciz bessophilus, 
139, 368. 
Cyanops duvaceli robinsoni, 310. 
franklini auricularis, 612. 
oorti annemensis, 612. 
Cygnus, 563. 
Cyornis magnirostris ccerulifrons, 
141. 
Cypseloides fumigatus, 218. 


Dariza acuta, 9, 51, 60, 616. 
Dandalus rubecula rubecula, 499. 
De Fenis, M. F., review of his ‘Con- 
tribution a L’Etude des Cris des 
, Oiseaux dans ses Rapports avec 


644 


la Musique,’ 300. 

Delaware Valley Ornithological 
Club, annual meeting of, 324; 
‘Proceedings ’ reviewed, 602. 

Dendragapus obscurus richardsonil, 

65. 
Dendrobiastes hyperythra annemen- 
sis, 612. 

Dendrocincela bartletti, 310. 
fuliginosa wallacei, 310. 
lafresnayei christian, 601. 

Dendrocolaptes picumnus, cearen- 
sis, 541. 

Dendrocygna, 

Dendroica, 225-228. 
estiva estiva, 39, 260. 

a. amnicola, 270. 

a. rubiginosa, 63. 

bryanti, 85. 

b. castaneiceps, 85. 

cxerulescens cerulescens, 
348, 523, 579. 

castanea, 43, 340, 348, 345. 

coronata, 55, 63, 260, 340, 341, 
404, 581. 

c. hooveri, 273. 

cerulea, 582. 

discolor, 391, 404, 589. 

dominica, 580, 588. 

d. dominica, 55, 404. 

erythacorides, 85. 

fusca, 348. 

magnolia, 261, 345. 

nigrescens, 409. 


226, 


palmarum hypochrysea, 43, 404. 


p. palmarum, 55. 

striata, 261. 

tigrina, 38, 340. 

vigorsi, 55, 404. 

virens, 43, 261, 345. 

v. waynei, 270, 303, 489, 492. 

vitellina, 304. 

v. crawfordi, 304. 

v. nelsoni, 304. 
Dendropicos minutus, 303. 

elachus, 303. 


Index. 


[ocr: 


Denver Museum expedition, 635. 
Dickcissel, 288, 522, 575. 
Dicruropsis montana, 599. 
Diomedia chionoptera, 604. 
exulans westralis, 310. 
irrorata, 370-372. 
sanfordi, 148. 
Disporus, 417. 
Diva, 577. 
vassori, 577. 
Dives dives, 196. 
Dixon, Joseph, personal mention, 
635. 
Dolichonyx oryzivorus, 307. 
Doolittle, E. A., Rough-winged 
Swallow, unusual nesting site, 115; 
unusual contents of a Mourning 
Dove’s nest, 281; breeding of the 
Black Duck in Lake Co.,Ohio, 560; 
Evening Grosbeak in May in 
Lake Co., Ohio, 574; a flight of 
Broad-winged Hawks and Rough- 
legs in Lake Co., Ohio, 568; a 
strange Blue Jay flight, 572. 
Dove, Ground, 385, 400. 
Mourning, 14, 37, 52, 106, 281, 
282, 400. 
Zenaida, 400. 
Turtle, 511. 
Dowitcher, 12, 104, 265. 
Long-billed, 399. 
Drymophila richmondi, 88. 
Dryobates borealis, 53, 401. 
major, 509. 
minor, 509. 
pubescens homorus, 250. 
p. medianus, 250. 
p. nelsoni, 250. 
p. pubescens, 53, 401. 
villosus, 286. 
v. leucomelas, 40, 248. 
DuBois, Alexander, an experience 
with Horned Grebes (Colymbus 
auritus), 170-180. 
Duck, Black, 50, 301, 355-367, 560. 
Florida Black, 397. 


Vol. Cra 
1919 


Greater Scaup, 9. 
Harlequin, 60. 
Lesser Scaup, 9, 51, 397. 
Ring-necked, 460-463, 587. 
Ruddy, 10, 397. 
Scaup, 397. 
Tufted, 461, 463. 
Wood, 51, 560. 

Dumetella carolinensis, 262, 341, 
405. 

Dunlin, 512. 

Dwight, Jonathan, the name ‘‘ery- 
throgaster’’ and others, 116-118; 
reasons for discarding a proposed 
race of the Glaucous Gull (Larus 
hyperboreus), 242-248; a correc- 
tion involving some Juncos, 287; 
notice of his ‘Description of a 
New Race of the Western Gull,’ 
301. 

Dysithamnus scistaceus, 219. 

Dysmorodrepanis munroi, 442. 


Eacte, Alaska Bald, 61. 

Bald, 18, 53, 385, 400, 517. 
Golden, 18, 61, 265, 293, 421, 
484, 

Earnshaw, F. L., see Lawyer, G. A. 

Kctopistes canadensis, 144, 267. 

migratorius, 267, 486. 
Ecuador, 488. 
Egret, 101, 398. 
Snowy, 51, 398. 
Egretta candidissima candidissima, 
51, 398. 

Egypt, birds of, 609. 

Eider, King, 515. 

Eifrig, C. W. G., notes on birds of 
the Chicago area and its immedi- 
ate vicinity, 513-524. 

Elenia guianensis, 220. 

Elepaio, 22-35. 

Elminia longicauda loande, 140. 

Emberiza aureola, 286. 

calandra calandra, 507. 
cirlus, 507. 


Index. 645 
fucata, 286. 
rustica, 286. 
schoeniclus scheeniclus, 507. 
Empidochanes fuscatus cabanisi 


220. 
f. fumosus, 220. 

Empidonax flaviventris, 41. 
fulvifrons fulvifrons, 469. 
minimus, 38, 251. 
trailli, 251. 

t. alnorum, 37, 268, 627. 
t. brewsteri, 268. 
t. traillii, 268. 

Empidonomus varius varius, 222. 

‘Emu, The,’ reviewed, 142, 311, 615. 

Endomychura, 596. 

Kremomela flaviventris alexanderi, 
140. 

Ereunetes pusillus, 37, 399. 
mauri, 399, 587. 

Ergaticus ruber, 467. | 

Erichson, W. J., some summer birds 

of Liberty County, Georgia, 
380-393; additions to the ‘ Birds 
of Liberty County, Ga.,’ 590-591. 

Erionotus cearensis, 88. 

Erismatura Jamaicensis, 10, 397. 

Eudynamys, 569, 570. 
scolopacea alberti, 570. 

. eyanocephala, 570. 

. everetil, 570. 

. facialis, 570. 

. flindersi, 570. 

. harterti, 570. 

. malayana, 570. 

. melanorhyncha, 570. 

. mindanensis, 570. 

. orientalis, 570. 

. Tufiventer, 570. 

. scolopacea, 570. 

. salvadorii, 570. 

s. subeyanocephala, 570. 

Eudyptila minor novehollande, 

142. 
Eumyias, 442. 
Eunetta falcata, 313, 443. 


nn nN 


DnNnnnnnn mM 


646 


Euphagus carolinus, 42, 62, 196, 
254, 
cyanocephalus, 196, 254. 

Euphilydor, 273. 

Euphonia, aurea pileata, 145. 
elegantissima, 469. 
hirundinacea, 602. 
laniirostris peruviana, 145. 
olivacea, 145. 
violacea magna, 145. 
vittata, 145. 

Eupsittula astee vicinalis, 601. 

Euscarthmus josephine, 613. 

Exanthemops, 562. 
rossi, 562. 

Excalfactoria chinensis palmeri, 599. 

Eximiornis, 129. 


Fatco bacha, 549. 
bassus, 549. 
bellicosus, 548. 
columbarius, 19. 
c. columbarius, 37. 
coronatus, 548. 
desertorum, 549. 
ecaudatus, 548. 
lagopus, 549. 
leucogaster, 548. 
mexicanus, 18. 
occipitalis, 548. 
peregrinus, 19. 
p. anatum, 61, 108. 
pterocles, 567. 
rufigularis pax, 310. 
r. petoensis, 310. 
rusticolus, 18, 265. 
sparverius, 20. 
s. sparverius, 37, 53, 400, 518. 
tinnunculus tinnunculus, 510. 
vocifer, 548. 
vulturinus, 548. =: 

Falcon, Prairie, 18. 

Farley, J. A., mating song of the 
Piping Plover, 566; Turkey Vul- 
ture at Plymouth, Mass., 567; 
early arrival of the Tree Swallow 


Index. 


[oer 


in Plymouth, Mass., 577; pecul- 
iar brooding of the _ Black- 
throated Blue Warbler, 579; 
nesting of the Myrtle Warbler in 
southern Massachusetts, 581; a 
Short-billed Marsh Wren colony 
in central New Hampshire, 583; 
the Blue Gray Gnatcatcher on 
Cape Cod, Mass., 584. 

Faxon, Walter, the name ‘‘erythro- 
gaster,” 294; Capt. Thomas 
Brown’s ‘Illustrations of the 
American Ornithology of Wilson 
and Bonaparte,’ 623-6. 

Felger, A. H., Blue Jay again in 
Jefferson Co., Colorado, 422. 

Fieldfare, 498. 

Finch, Purple, 44, 254, 342, 346, 

473, 478, 479, 521. 
Rosy, 255. 
Gray-crowned Rosy, 62. 
Serin, 505. 

‘Fins, Feathers and Fur,’ noticed, 
607. 

Fisher, G. Clyde, Egrets (Herodias 
egretta) in northern New Jersey, 
101; a note of the Long-eared 
Owl (Asio wilsonianus), 109. 

Fleming, J. H., note on his collec- 
tion of birds, 321; personal men- 
tion, 452. 

Flicker, 53, 250, 386, 401, 570. 

Northern, 62, 519. 

Florida, birds of, 45-56, 86, 393-405, 
DOO: 

Florida czrulea, 51, 384, 398, 565. 

Flower, S. S., and Nicholl, M. J., 
notice of their ‘The Principal 
Species of Birds Protected by Law 
in Egypt,’ 609. 

Flycatcher, Alder, 37, 62. 

Crested, 305, 387, 401. 
Least, 38, 251. 
Olive-sided, 41, 44, 251, 478, 

479, 485. 

Pied, 503. 


Vol. ‘ri all 
1919 


Spotted, 503. 

Traill’s, 251. 

Yellow-bellied, 41, 481. 
France, birds of, 497-513. 
Francolinus chinensis, 442. 

pintadeanus, 442. 

Fregata aquila, 397. 

French, John C., review of his ‘The 
Passenger Pigeon in Pennsyl- 
vania,’ 605. 

Fringilla ccelebs celebs, 

comata, 185. 

cyanea, 185. 

erythropthalma, 185. 

ludoviciana, 185. 

texensis, 469. 

Froggatt, W. W., notice of his ‘The 
Crow Family,’ 609. 

Fulica americana, 11, 102, 398. 

atra atra, 511. 

Fuligula minor, 471. 

Forbush, Edward Howe, notice of 
his ‘Eleventh Annual Report of 
the State Ornithologist of Massa- 
chusetts,’ 438. 

Fulmarus glacialis, 237, 267. 

g. glupischa, 271. 

rodgersi, 237, 267, 271. 
Furnarius agnatus endoecus, 89. 


GADWALL, 9, 50, 397. 
Galapagos, birds of the, 370-372. 
Galbula albirostris, 285. 
rufoviridis, 285. 
melanogenia, 286. 
Gallinago delicata, 12, 39, 51, 61, 
398. 
gallinago gallinago, 512. 
Gallinula chloropus chloropus, 511. 
galeata, 398. 
Gallinule, Florida, 398. 
Gampsonyx swainsonii leon, 310. 
s. magnus, 310. 
Gannet, 37. 
Garrulus, 312. 
bispecularis persaturatus, 312. 


Indez. 


647 


b. interstinctus, 312. 
glandarius glandarius, 502. 
Gaspé bird reserves, notice of es- 
tablishment, 451. 

Gavia arctica arctica, 

266. 
a. pacifica, 238-242, 266. 
a. suschkini, 238-242, 271. 
a. viridigularis, 238-242, 266. 
immer, 7, 395, 587. 
pacifica, 60. 
stellata, 60, 395. 
Gecinus striolatus, 303. 
viridis, 286. 

Geopelia maugeus, audacis, 312. 

Georgia, birds of, 288, 380-393, 590. 

Geothlypis, 290. 

trichis ignota, 55, 404. 
t. occidentalis, 261. 
t. trichas, 341. 

Geotrygon montana, 221. 

Gilmore, Albert Field, review of his 
‘Birds of Field, Forest and Park,’ 
436. 

Giraud, Jacob Post, biographical 
sketch of, 464-472. 

Gladstone, Hugh S., notice of his 
‘Birds and the War,’ 602. 

Glaucidium gnoma gnoma, 70. 

Globicera pacifica, 604. 

rubricera, 614. 

Godman, Frederick DuCane, obitu- 
ary notice of, 319; memorial to, 
629. 

Golden-eye, 9, 37, 264, 484. 

Goldfinch, 255, 402, 479, 505. 

Goodhue, Isabel, the song of the 
Blue Jay, 111. 

Goose, Blue, 515. 

Canada, 10, 37, 51, 483, 515. 
Hutchins’s, 61. 
Ross’s, 10. 
Snow, 10, 262, 515. 
White-fronted, 10. 
Goshawk, American, 15, 293, 484, 
Olle: 


238-242, 


648 


Gnatcatcher, Blue-gray, 405, 584, 
591. 

Grackle, Bronzed, 44, 474, 627. 
Boat-tailed, 54, 388, 402. 
Florida, 54, 402. 

Purple, 254. 

Graves, Francis Miner, notes from 
a Connecticut pine swamp, 293. 

Graves of American  ornitholo- 
gists, 631-634. 

Great Britain, birds of, 432, 597. 

Grebe, Eared, 7. 

Great Crested, 617. 
Holboell’s, 7, 64. 
Horned, 7, 50, 60, 
264, 394. 
Pied-billed, 7, 395. 
Western, 7, 64, 264. 

Greenfinch, 505. 

Greenshank, 513. 

Grinnell, George Bird, Ruddy Shel- 
drake on the Atlantic coast, 561. 

Grinnell, Joseph, specific names in 
the nominative case, 427; per- 
sonal mention, 452. 

Grinnell, Joseph, Bryant, H. C., 
Storer, T. I., review of their 
‘The Game Birds of California,’ 
297-299. 

Griscom, Ludlow, European Wid- 
geon on Long Island in winter, 
560; further notes from Leon 
Co., Florida, 587-589. 

Grosbeak, Evening, 254, 423, 484, 

521, 572, 573, 574. 

Pine, 254, 285, 423, 483, 484, 
byAlle 

Rose-breasted, 477. 

Grouse, Richardson’s, 65. 

Ruffed, 138, 264, 279, 325-339. 
478, 517. 
Sharp-tailed, 13. 

Grus americana, 264. 
canadensis, 11, 61. 
mexicana, 11, 65, 264, 516. 

Guara alba, 398. 


170-180, 


Thdee 


Auk 
Oct. 


Guiraca cerulea, 117. 
c. salicarius, 428. 
Gull, Bonaparte’s, 65, 264, 395. 
Franklin’s, 8, 395. 
Great Black-backed, 44. 
Herring, 50, 60, 64, 395, 484, 
513. 
Laughing, 395. 
Lesser Black-backed, 513. 
Ring-billed, 8, 50, 395, 473, 484. 
Gunthorp, Horace, a heronry on 
Lake Cormorant, Minn., 492-496. 
Gymnomystax melanicterus, 197. 
Gyrfalcon, 18, 265. 


HaMarTopus fraseri, 596. 
palhatus, 596. 
Halixetus albicilla, 82. 
a. brooksi, 82. 
brooksi, 82. 
leucocephalus, 18. 
1. alascanus, 61. 
1. leucocephalus, 53, 385, 400. 
naling 

Hardenberg, C. B., notice of his 
‘Some Insects Injurious to the 
Black Wattle,’ 609. 

Harrier, Hen, 510. 

Marsh, 510. 

Harris, Harry, notes on Harris’s 
Sparrow, 180-190; review of his 
‘Birds of the Kansas City Region,’ 
433. 

Harriwhitea, 604. 

Hartert, Ernst, personal mention of, 
635. 

Hawaii, birds of, 22-35. 

Hawk, American Sparrow, 20. 

Broad-winged, 53, 265, 294, 481, 
482, 485, 568. 

Cooper’s, 52. 

Duck, 349-350. 

Florida Red-shouldered, 52. 

Harris’, 567. 

Marsh, 15, 37, 52, 61, 67, 400, 
474, 517. 


Vol. oh | 
1919 


Pigeon, 19, 37. 

Red-shouldered, 474. 

Red-tailed, 15, 52. 

Rough-legged, 17, 61, 568. 

Sharp-shinned, 15, 52, 61, 400. 

Sparrow, 37, 53, 400, 479, 510, 

518. 

Swainson’s, 17, 69, 517. 

Western Red-tailed, 67. 
Hedymeles, 115. 

melanocephalus, 408-416. 

m. capitalis, 410. 

m. melanocephalus, 408. 

m. papago, 412. 

Helme, A. H., Evening Grosbeaks 
on Long Island, N. Y., 573; the 
Orange-crowned Warbler on Long 
Island in April, 579. 

Helodromas solitarius, 12. 

s. cinnamomeus, 61. 

Hen, Moor, 511. 

Henninger, W. F., an overlooked 
record of the Trumpeter Swan, 
564. 

Herodias, 557. 

egretta, 101, 398. 

Heron, Black-crowned Night, 37, 

101, 515. 

Common, 510. 

Great Blue, 11, 44, 51, 101, 
492-496. 

Green, 101, 384, 588. 

Little Blue, 51, 384, 398, 565. 

Louisiana, 51, 384, 398. 

: Yellow-crowned Night, 398. 
Herpetotheres cachinnans queri- 
bundus, 601. 

Herrick, Francis H., Audubon’s 
bibliography, 372-380. 

Hesperiphona vespertina, 254. 

v. vespertina, 423, 521, 572, 573, 
574. 

Heteractitis, 596. 

Heteroscelis, 278. 

Heteroscelus, 278, 596. 

brevipes, 443. 


Indez. 


649 


Hieraaétus ayresi, 440. 
spllogaster, 441. 
Himantopus mexicanus, 587. 
Hirundo erythrogastra, 114, 116, 
259, 403, 428. 
puella unitatis, 140. 
rustica rustica, 503. 

Histrionicus histrionicus, 60. 

Hoatzin, 302, 617. 

Hoffman, Ralph, Mourning Doves 
sharing a Robin roost, 106-107. 
Hollister, N., brooding habit of the 
American Coot, 102; systematic 
position of the Ring-necked Duck, 

460-463. 

Holoquiscalus, 194, 196. 

Holt, Ernest G., Red-bellied Nut- 
hatch in Alabama, 584; personal 
mention, 634. 

Hoopoe, 509. 

‘“Hornero, El’ reviewed, 615. 
Horsfall, R. B., notice of his bird 
paintings in the N. Y. Zoo, 157. 
Howe, Reginald Heber, Carolina 

Wren nestingin Rhode Island, 583. 

Howell, A. B., personal mention, 
635. 

Howell, A. H., description of a new 
Seaside Sparrow from Florida, 
86-87; obituary notice of Robert 
Day Hoyt, 319. 

Hoyt, Robert Day, obituary notice, 
319. 

Hummingbird 

Calliope, 70. 
Ruby-throated, 37, 401, 479. 

Hybrids, 313. 

Hydranassa tricolor ruficollis, 51, 

384, 398. 

Hydrobates, 276. 

Hydrobatide, 276. 

Hydrochelidon nigra surinamensis, 

514. 

Hydrocolceus, 596. 

Hydrophasianus chirurgus, 617. 

Hydroprogne, 596. 


650 


Hylacola pyrrhopygia magna, 142. 
Hylocichla alicie alicie, 63. 
fuscescens fuliginosa, 438. 
f. salicicola, 263, 438. 
guttata, 263. 
g. pallasi, 56, 405. 
g. polionota, 271. 
ustulata, 263. 
u. swainsoni, 63, 345. 
Hypocentor aureolus, 287. 
fucatus, 287. 
rusticus, 287. 
Hypotznidia striata reliqua, 601. 


Ips, White, 398. 
Wood, 398, 565. 
‘Ibis, The,’ reviewed, 139, 309, 446, 
611. 
Ibycter americanus, 218. 
Icteria, 290. 
virens, virens, 391. 
viridis, 185. 
Icteride, palate structure in the, 
190-197. 
Icterus audubonu, 468. 
bullocki, 254. 
galbula, 254, 520. 
gularis, 195. 
g. yucatanensis, 195. 
icterus, 269. 
laudabilis, 195. 
melanocephalus audubonii, 468. 
prosthemelas, 195. 
spurius, 387, 520. 
xantholemus, 313. 
xanthornus, 195. 
zanthrocephalus, 183. 
Idaho, 424. 
Ilnois, birds of, 118, 518-524. 
Indexes to ornithological literature, 
630. 
Indiana, birds of, 276. 
Indicapus, 129. 
Iredale, Tom, see Mathews, G. M., 
Iridoprocne bicolor, 55, 408, 523, 
579. 


Index. 


[oct 


Ixoreus nevius meruloides, 64. 
Iyngipicus pygmzeus, 303. 
auritus, 303. 


JACANA spinosa, 596. 
s. gymnostoma, 596. 
Jaeger, Long-tailed, 276. 
Java, birds of, 599. 
Jay, 502. 
Alaska, 62. 
Blue, 111, 251, 387, 422, 482, 
484, 572. 
Canada, 252, 422. 
Florida Blue, 54, 401. 
Junco, 44, 295, 474. 
Slate-colored, 63, 257, 522. 
Junco, hyemalis hyemalis, 63, 257, 
522. 
insularis, 270, 296. 
i. insularis, 287. 
i. mearnsi, 287. 
i. townsendi, 287. 
mearnsi townsendi, 270. 
m. insularis, 270. 
oreganus annectens, 272. 
. couesi, 270. 
. mearnsi, 270. 
. montanus, 272. 
. oreganus, 270. 
. pontilis, 611. 
. shufeldti, 270. 
. townsendi, 270. 
pheonotus dorsalis, 273. 
Jynx torquilla torquilla, 509. 


O30 10:50: "Or On © 


Kaao, 321. 

Kansas, birds of, 288, 433, 567. 

Kennard, Fred. H., obituary notice 
of F. B. McKechnie, 449; notes 
on a new subspecies of Blue 
winged Teal, 455-460. 

Kestrel, 510. 

Killdeer, 566. 

Kingbird, 41, 44, 251, 305, 341, 342, 

387, 401, 479. 
Kingfisher, 509. 
Belted, 53, 62, 248, 401. 


Vol. ae | 
1919 


Kinglet, Golden-crowned, 56, 478, 
524. 
Ruby-crowned, 56, 63, 405, 478, 
524, 525. 
Kittiwake, 36, 44. 
Klages, personal mention, 321. 
Knot, 105, 516. 
Kuroda, Nagamichi, obituary no- 
tice of M. Namiye, 628. 


LABRADOR, 424, 427. 

Lagopus sp., 61. 

Lamprocorax panayensis richmondi, 

600. 

Lampropsar, 191. 

Lanius borealis, 259. 
collurio collurio, 503. 
excubitor excubitor, 503. 
ludovicianus excubitorides, 259. 
1. ludovicianus, 55, 288, 390, 403. 
l. migrans, 523. 

1. nelsoni, 270, 308. 
senator senator, 503. 

Lanivireo solitarius, 259. 
s. solitarius, 55, 404. 

Lantz, David Ernest, 

notice of, 154. 

Lapwing, 512. 

Lark, Horned, 570. 
Pallid horned, 62. 
Prairie Horned, 34, 348, 473, 

479, 571. 

Larus, 596. 
affinis, 542-546. 
argentatus, 8, 50, 60, 64, 100, 

395, 513. 
atricilla, 395. 
barrovianus, 242-248. 
brachyrhynchus, 83, 276. 
californicus, 8. 
canus, 83. 
c. brachyrhynchus, 83, 276. 
delawarensis, 8, 50, 395, 484. 
franklini, 8, 395. 
fuscus, 542-546, 599. 
f. affinis, 546. 


obituary 


Index. 


651 


f. fuscus, 513, 545. 

glaucus, 609. 

hyperboreus, 242, 248, 267, 600, 
613. 

leucopterus, 600. 

marinus, 600. 

nelsoni, 600. 

occidentalis livens, 301. 

philadelphia, 65, 264, 395. 

thayeri, 596. 

Law, J. E., personal mention, 635. 

Lawrence, R. B., Little Blue Heron 
on Long Island, N. Y., 565. 

Lawyer, G. A., notice of his ‘Fed- 
eral Protection of Migratory 
Birds,’ 606. 

Lawyer, G. A. and Earnshaw, F. L., 
notice of their ‘Game Laws for 
1919,’ 616. 

Leggeornis lamberti hartogi, 310. 

Leister, C. W., aerial evolutions of a 
Flicker, 510. 

Leopold, Nathan F., Jr., Long- 
tailed Jaeger in Indiana, 276. 


Leptophethon lepturus catesbyi, 
556. 

Leptoptila verreauxi brevipennis, 
309. 


Leucopternis ghiesbreghti costari- 
censis, 612. 

Leucosticte, tephrocotis, 62, 255. 

Levaillant, Franz, Oiseaux d’Afri- 
que, 546-549. 

Lewis, Harrison F., winter Robins 
in Nova Scotia, 205-217; song 
of the Canada Jay, 422. 

Limnodromus, 596. 

Linnean Society of New York, 
review of the ‘Proceedings’ of 
the, 133. 

Lloyd, Hoyes, permits to collect 
birds for scientific purposes in 
Canada, 621-623. 

Longspur, Alaska, 62. 

Chestnut-collared, 255. 
Lapland, 255. 


652 
Smith’s, 62. 
Lonnberg, Einar, review of his 


‘Hybrid Gulls,’ 599. 

Loomis, Leverett M., the reality of 
bird species, 235-237; variation 
in the Galapagos Albatross, 370- 
372; dichromatism in the Wedge- 
tailed Shearwater, 487-488. 

Loon, 7, 100, 395, 481, 587. 

Black-throated, 238. 

Green-throated, 238. 

Pacific, 60, 589. 

Red-throated, 60, 395. 
Lophodytes cucullatus, 50, 100, 587. 
Lophotriceus macconnelli, 613. 
Lophozosterops striaticeps, 303. 
Lorius flavopalliatus, 131. 

Loxia curvirosta, 255. 

¢. minor, 38. 

Lullula arborea arborea, 508. 

Luscinia megarhyncha megarhyn- 

cha, 499. 


Massott, Douglas Clifford, obitu- 
ary notice of, 153. 

McAtee, W. L., further notes on the 
“fishy”? flavor of birds, 100; 
review of Collinge’s papers on 
economic ornithology, 136; obit- 
uary notice of Douglas Clifford 
Mabbott, 153; “off” flavor of 
wildfowl, 296; review of his 
‘Food Habits of the Mallard 
Ducks of the United States,’ 301; 
economic ornithology in recent 
entomological publications, 304; 
destructive invasion by an Aus- 
tralian rail, 418; observations 
on the shifting range, migration 
and economic value of the Bobo- 
link, 430-431; reviews by, 608- 
610, personal mention, 323. 

MacCaughey, Vaughan, the Ha- 
waiian Elepaio, 22-35. 

McKechnie, Frederick B., obituary 
notice of, 449. 


Index. 


Auk 
Oct. 


McMahon, Walter Freeman, obitu- 
ary notice of, 153. 

Machetes, 613. 

Macrageleus, 191. 

Macrorhamphus, 596. 

griseus, 12. 

g. griseus, 104, 265. 

g. scolopaceus, 265, 399. 
Magpie, 62, 72, 113, 251, 502. 
Mailliard, Joseph and John W., gift 

of their collection to the Cali- 
fornia Academy of Sciences, 320. 

Maine, birds of, 277, 303. 

Majaqueus, 276. 

Malacoptila fusca, 286. 

inornata, 286. 

Malindangia, 303. 

Mallard, 8, 50, 103, 301, 397. 

Malurus cyanotus diademantina, 

143. 

Manitoba, birds of, 617. 

Man-o’-war-bird, 397. 

Mareca americana, 9, 60, 277. 

penelope, 277, 514, 560, 616. 
Marila, affinis, 9, 51, 461. 

americana, 463. 

bairi, 461. 

collaris, 397, 460-463, 587. 

ferina, 463. 

fuligula, 461, 463. 

marila, 9, 397, 461. 

noveseclandix, 461. 

valisineria, 9, 397. 

Martin, House, 504. 

Purple, 258, 390, 403. 

Sand, 504. 

Massachusetts, birds of, 284, 292, 
349-350, 351-355, 438, 565, 573, 
584. 

Mathews, G. M., and Iredale, Tom, 
proper name of the Tree Sparrow, 
114. 

Mathews, G. M., review of his ‘The 
Birds of Australia,’ 129, 299, 603. 

Meadowlark, 475, 484, 520. 

Southern, 54, 402. 


Vol. re 
1919 


Western, 253. 
Megaceryle, 267. 
Megalema asiatica, 286. 
Megalestris, 418. 
Megalurus celebensis, 599. 

palustris forbesi, 602. 
Megapodius nicobariensis abbott, 

601. 
Megaquiscalus, 192. 

major macrourus, 194. 

m. major, 54, 388, 402. 

nicaraguensis, 194. 

tenuirostris, 194. 


Melanerpes erythrocephalus, 386, 
401, 519. 

Melanocorypha bimaculata gaza, 
612. 


Melithreptus gularis, 615. 
Melospiza georgiana, 55, 237, 257, 
403. 

lincolni, 237, 257. 

1. lincolni, 42, 588. 

melodia, 237, 525. 

m. juddi, 257. 

m. melodia, 55, 257, 403. 

Menura alberti, 604. 

Merganser, 8, 397, 484. 

Hooded, 50, 587. 
Red-breasted, 50, 60, 397. 

Mergus americanus, 397. 

serrator, 50, 60, 397. 
sp., 8. 

Michigan, 115, 569. 

Microcochlearius, 613. 

Micropalama himantopus, 102. 

Migratory bird law and treaty, 323. 

Miller, Carrie Ella, review of her 
‘Birds of Lewiston-Auburn and 
Vicinity,’ 303. 

Miller, Leo E., review of his ‘In the 
Wilds of South America,’ 125-127. 

Miller, Olive Thorne, obituary 
notice of, 163-169. 

Miller, W. DeW., on Brotogeris fer- 
rugineifrons Lawrence, 110; the 
deep plantar tendons in the Puff- 
birds, Jacamars and their Allies, 


Indez. 


653 
285; the affinities of Chama- 
thlypis, 290; four rare birds in 


Sussex County, N. J., 293; con- 
stant difference in relative pro- 
portions of parts as a specific 
character, 295; the Pine Gros- 
beak (Pinicola enucleator leu- 
cura) in northwestern New Jersey, 
423; notes on the structure of 
Anseranas semipalmata, 562; the 
Tanagrine genus Procnopis Cab- 
anis, 576. 

Mimus polyglottos polyglottos, 56, 

391, 404, 523. 

Minnesota, birds of, 492-496, 598. 

Missouri, birds of, 180-190, 433, 579. 

Mniotilta varia, 259. 

Mniotiltide, 442. 

Mockingbird, 56, 391, 404, 523. 

Molothrus, 197. 

ater, 193, 307. 
a. ater, 253, 520, 588. 
atronitens, 197. 
fringillarius, 197. 
rufoaxillaris, 197. 
Monasa atra, 442. 
flavirostris, 286. 
grandior, 286. 
nigra, 442 
Moris bassana, 417. 
capensis, 417. 
serrator dyotti, 417. 
s. serrator, 417. 

Morus, 417. 

Moseley, Edwin Lincoln, review of 
his ‘Trees, Stars and Birds,’ 434. 

Motacilla alba alba, 507. 

flava flava, 507. 

Moult, 310. 

Mousley, H., ‘‘the singing tree,”’ 
or how near to the nest do the 
male birds sing, 339-348; further 
notes and observations on the 
birds of Hatley, Stanstead Co., 
Quebec, 472-487. 

Muscadivora, 312. 

Muscadivores, 312. 


654 


Muscicapa belli, 469. 
brasierii, 469. 
derhami, 469. 
fulvifrons, 469. 
grisola, 312. 
hypoleuca hypoleuca, 503. 
lawrenceil, 468. 
leucomus, 469. 
rubrifrons, 469. 
striata, 312. 

s. striata, 503. 
texensis, 468. 

Munro, J. A., notes on some birds 
of the Okanagan Valley, British 
Columbia, 64-74. 

Murphy, Robert C., notice of his 
photographs of South Georgia 
birds, 182; personal mention, 634. 

Murre, Brunnich’s, 473. 

Museum of Analytical 
notice of, 453. 

Museum of Comparative Oology, 
notice of, 453. 

Myadestes townsendi, 73. 

Mycteria americana, 398. 565. 

Myiarchus crinitus, 305, 387, 401. 

lawrencel lawrencei, 468. 
Myiocborus miniatus miniatus, 469. 
Myiochanes richardsoni, 251. 

r. richardsoni, 71. 

Myiopagis gaimardui guianensis, 220. 

Myiozetetes texensis texensis, 468. 

Myrmotherula cinereiventris, 310. 


Oology, 


Namiye, M., obituary notice of, 628. 
Nannus troglodytes, 600. 

t. hiemalis, 600. 

t. kiskensis, 600. 

t. petrophilus, 600. 

t. tanagensis, 600. 

National Association of Audubon 
Societies, notice of the Annual 
Report of, 134. 

National Zoological Park, Annual 
Report noticed, 607. 

‘Natural History,’ notice of, 453. 

Neafrapus, 129. 


Auk 


I ndex . Oct. 


Nemospiza henslowii susurrans, 270. 
Neocossyphus rufus arrhenii, 443. 
Neoglottis, 596. 
Neopsar nigerrimus, 197. 
Neoscolopax, 596. 
Nephocetes, 130. 
Nestor notabilis, 131. 
Netherlands, birds of the, 127. 
Nettion, 563. 
carolinense, 9, 50, 60, 81. 
crecca, 81. 
torquatum, 612. 
New Brunswick, birds of, 35-45, 
225-228. 
New Hampshire, birds of, 288, 583. 
New Jersey, birds of, 101, 293, 423. 
561, 573. 
New York, birds of, 102-104, 158, 
293, 421, 470-471, 560, 573, 582. 
New York Zoological Society, Re- 
port for 1918 noticed, 607. 
Newfoundland, birds of, 438. 
Nicholl, M. J., see Flower, 8. S. 
Nichols, J. T., problems suggested 
by nests of warblers of the genus 
Dendroica, 225-228. 
Nicobar Islands, birds of, 601. 
Nighthawk, 62, 250, 481, 519. 
Florida, 401. 
Nightingale, 499. 
Nightjar, 508. 
Niltava grandis decorata, 612. 
Noble, G. K., notice of his ‘Notes 
on the Avifauna of Newfound- 
land,’ 488. 
North Carolina, bords of, 561. 
Notorchilus, 312. 
Nova Scotia, birds of, 205-217. 
Nucifraga columbiana, 72. 
Numenius, 596. 
americanus, 13. 
a. occidentalis, 267, 596. 
longirostris, 265. 
occidentalis, 268. 
Numida galeata, 613. 
meleagris, 613. 
Nutcracker, 72. 


Vol. ‘el 
1919 


Nuthatch, 502. 
Brown-headed, 56, 590. 
Red-breasted, 45, 262, 423, 479. 
White-breasted, 524. 

Nuttallornis borealis, 41, 251, 485. 

Nyctea . nyctea, 265, 285, 519, 

569. 

Nycticorax nycticorax nevius, 37. 
violacea, 398. 

Nyroea, 461, 462. 


OBERHOLSER, Harry C., description 
of a new subspecies of Piranga 
hepatica Swainson, 74-80; notes 
on North American birds, VII, 
81-85; Zamlodia versus Hedy- 
meles, 115; fourth annual list of 
proposed changes in the A. O. U. 
Check-List of North American 
birds, 266-273;  Procellaride 
versus Hydrobatide, 276; Larus 
canus brachyrhynchus in Wyoming, 
276; Polysticta Eyton versus 
Stelleria Bonaparte, 277; the 
proper generic name of the Ruff, 
278; Heteractitis versus Hetero- 
scelus, 278; the status of Chara- 
drius rubricollis Gmelin, 279; 
Thrasaetos versus Harpia, 282; 
the status of the generic name 
Archibuteo, 282; the proper 
name for the Texas Barred Owl, 
282; the status of the genus Hy- 
pocentor Cabanis, 286; review of 
his ‘Mutanda Ornithologica V,’ 
303; notes on North American 
birds, VIII, 406-408; the geo- 
graphic races of Hedemeles melan- 
ocephalus, Swainson, 408-416; 
the generic name of the Gannets, 
417; Polysticta versus Stellaria— 
a correction, 418; Megalestris 
versus Catharacta, 418; the 
status of the genus Archibuteo, 
420; the range of the Short-tailed 
Mountain Chickadee (Penthestes 
ganbeli abbreviatus Grinnell), 424; 
Tachytriorchis, the generic name 


Index. 


655 


for the White-tailed Hawk, 567; 
notes on the races of Quiscalus 
quiscula (Linneus), 549-555; 
notes on North American birds, 
TX, 556-559; Ezxanthemops EI- 
liot— An Excellent genus, 562; 
Buteonidze versus Accipitride, 
569; review of his ‘Notes on 
the Wrens of the Genus Nannus 
Biliberg,’ 600; review of his 
“The Birds of Tambelan Islands, 
South China Sea,’ 600; review 
of his ‘Notes on Birds Collected 
by Dr. W. L. Abbott on Pulo 
Taya, Berhala Strait, South- 
eastern Sumatra,’ 600; review of 
his ‘A Revision of the Sub- 
species of the White-collared 
Kingfisher, Sauropatis  chloris 
(Boddaert),’ 601; notice of his 
‘The Races of the Nicobar Mega- 
pode, Megapodius nicobariensis 
Blyth,’ 601; review of his ‘Notes 
on Dr. W. L. Abbott’s Second 
Collection of Birds from Simalur 
Island, Western Sumatra,’ 601. 
Ochthodromus, 596. 
wilsonius, 355. 
Ocyalus, 191. 
Odontophorus, 439. 
guianensis simonsi, 309. 
buckleyi, 309. 
panamensis, 309. 
(Enanthe cenanthe cenanthe, 498. 
(énceenas plumbea locutrix, 218. 
purpureotincta, 218. 
(strelata fisheri 604. 
sealaris, 604. 
Ogilvie Grant, W. R., personal men- 
tion, 157. 
Ohio, birds of, 468, 560, 565, 574. 
Oidemia deglandi, 10, 37. 
Olor buccinator, 564. 
columbianus, 11. 
Ontario, birds of, 116, 566. 
Oological dinner, 635. 
‘Oologist, The,’ reviewed, 139, 309, 
Ol: 


656 


Opisthocomus cristatus, 302. 
Oporornis formosus, 523. 
philadelphia, 261. 
Oreophilus ruficollis simonsi, 441, 
599. 
Oriole, Baltimore, 254, 477, 479, 520. 
Bullock’s, 254. 
Orchard, 387, 520. 
Oriolus melanocephalus, 312. 
luteolus, 312. 
Ornismia cinnamomea, 302. 
‘Ornithologiste L’,’ reviewed, 615. 
Orthorhamphus magnirostris scom- 
mophorus, 600. 
Oryzoborus angolensis brevirostris, 
223. 
crassirostris crassirostris, 223. 
Osprey, 20, 53, 386, 400, 481, 510. 
Otocoris alpestris alpestris, 570. 
a. ammophila, 268. 
. aphrasta, 269. 
. arcticola, 62. 
. chrysolema, 469. 
.enertera, 268. 
enthymia, 269. 
. giraudi, 469. 
. leucansiptila, 268. 
. leucoleema, 251. 
. praticola, 571. 
Otus asio floridanus, 100. 
Ovenbird, 45, 261, 404, 532. 
Owl, Barred, 518. 
Barn, 400, 518. 
Brown, 510. 
Dusky Horned, 62. 
Florida Screech, 100. 
Great Gray, 20, 61. 
Great Horned, 21, 53, 265, 367- 
370, 519. 
Hawk, 21, 62. 
Long-eared, 20, 70, 109, 283. 
Pygmy, 70. 
Saw-whet, 21. 
Short-eared, 20, 40, 109,284, 400. 
Snowy, 265, 285, 519, 549. 
Oxyechus vociferus, 13, 52, 105, 399. 
v. vociferus, 566. 


spewprrpnpne & & & 


Indez. ae 


PACHYCEPHALA pluviosa, 599. 

Pagolla, 596. 
wilsonia beldingi, 596. 

w. clinnamonina, 596. 

Palmer, T. S., thirty-sixth stated 
meeting of the American Orni- 
thologists’ Union, 90-99; obitu- 
ary notice of Prof. David E. 
Lantz, 154; check lists, 155; 
called to the Colors, 158; geo- 
graphical distribution of A. O. U. 
membership, 323; obituary no- 
tice of Merrill Willis Blain, 629; 
obituary notice of Leo Wiley, 
629; indexes to ornithological 
literature — Journals, 630; where 
American ornithologists rest, 631; 
complete sets of ‘The Auk,’ 634; 
data on the age of birds, 591; re- 
views of the annual report of the 
N. Y. Zoological Society, and the 
National Zoological Park, 607; 
Tori noticed, 616. 

Panama, birds of, 302. 

Pandion haliaetus, 20. 

h. haliaetus, 510. 
carolinensis, 53, 386, 400. 

Pangburn, C. H., a three months’ 
list of the birds of Pinellas County, 
Florida, 393-405. 

Pangburn, Clifford H., and Saun- 
ders, Aretas A., the Raven in 
Connecticut, 572. 

Papuanapus, 129. 

Parabuteo unicinctus harrisi, 283, 

567. 
Pardirallus rityrhynchus tschudii, 
309. 

Parisoma blanfordi somaliensis, 140. 

Partridge Canada Spruce, 37. 
Hungarian, 13. 

Parus ceruleus, ceruleus, 501. 
cristatus mitratus, 502. 
leucotis, 469. 
major major, 501. 

Passer domesticus, 313, 597. 

d. domesticus, 506. 


Vol. ree 
1919 


d. hostilis, 597. 

montanus montanus, 506. 
Passerculus sandwichensis, 256. 

s. alaudinus, 63. 

s. bradburyi, 269. 

s. savanna, 402. 
Passerella iliaca brevicauda, 270. 

i. canescens, 270, 438 

i. fulva, 270, 438. 

i. iliaca, 63, 257. 

i. mariposa, 270, 438. 

1. megarhynca, 438. 
Passerherbulus caudacutus, 442. 

henslowi, 574. 

h. henslowi, 402, 522.. 

h. susurrans, 270. 

lecontei, 256, 442. 

maritimus peninsule, 54, 402. 

nelsoni, 256. 

n. nelsoni, 54, 522. 

Passerina ciris, 389, 403. 

cyanea, 403. 

Paul, Lucius H., early occurrence of 
the Snowy Owl and the Pine 
Grosbeak in Monroe County, 
IN ney 20. 

Pavoncella, 278. 

Pearson, T. Gilbert, Roseate Spoon- 
bill in North Carolina, 566; 
obituary notice of Walter F. 
McMahon, 153. 

Pedicecetes phasianellus, 13. 

Pelecanus californicus, 267. 

erythrorhynchus, 8, 364, 396, 
617. 
occidentalis, 50, 396. 
o. californicus, 267. 
Peles, 304. 
Pelican, Brown, 50, 390. 
White, 8, 264, 396. 
Pelidna alpina, 265. 
a. alpina, 512. 
a. sakhalina, 52, 103, 399. 586. 

Pemberton, J. R., review of his 
‘Second Ten Year Index to The 
Condor,’ 598. 


Index. 


657 


Penard, Thomas E., remarks on 
Beebe’s ‘Tropical Wild Life,’ 
217-225; the name of the Black 
Cuckoo, 569; Sarkidiornis sylvi- 
cola in British Guiana, 564; see 
also Bangs, Outram, 

Penelope nigrifrons, 616. 


Pennsylvania, birds of, 108,419, 
605. 
Penthestes atricapillus septentrion- 


alis, 263. 

a. carolinensis, 273. 

carolinensis carolinensis, 56. 

hudsonicus, 262. 

h. hudsonicus, 63. 

h. littoralis, 43. 

gambeli abbreviatus, 271, 424. 

g. inyoensis, 271. 

Penthoceryx sonnerati waiti, 310. 

Perdix perdix, 13. 

Perisoreus canadensis canadensis, 
252. 

ce. fumifrons, 62. 

Perkins, Anne E., bird notes from 
Collins, Erie Co., N. Y., 589. 
Petrochelidon lunifrons, 258. 

1. lunifrons, 63, 522. 

Peucea estivalis estivalis, 403. 

a. bachmani, 522. 
Peucedramus olivaceus, 469. 
Pewee, Wood, 342. 

Western Wood, 71, 251. 
Pheeopus, 596. 

Phaéthon americanus, 587. 
Phalacrocaorax auritus auritus, 8, 
264, 514. 

a. floridanus, 396, 587. 
Phalarope, Red, 419. 

Wilson’s, 12, 516. 
Phalaropus fulicarius, 419. 
Phasianide, 119-125. 
Phasianus colchicus, 616. 

meleagris, 613. 
Philadelphia Zoological 

rare birds in the, 321. 
Philipp, P. B., and Bowdish, B. 5., 


Garden, 


658 


further notes on New Brunswick 
birds, 36-45. 
Philippines, birds of, 135. 
Phillips, C. L., a late record for 
Rallus elegans for Maine, 277. 
Philohela minor, 37. 
Philomachus, 278, 613. 
Phlegoenas erinigera basilanica, 312. 
c. leytensis, 312. 
Phlcectomus pileatus, 250, 588. 
p. abieticola, 293. 
p. pileatus, 53. 
Pheebe, 54, 251, 305, 342, 401. 
Says, 62) 7b 25k: 
Phoenicurus phcenicurus 
curus, 499. 
Phylidor lichtensteini, 273. 
Phylloscopus trochilus trochilus, 500 
Picaypicat 251", 
p. hudsonia, 62, 72, 113. 
p. pica, 502. 
Picoides americanus, fasciatus, 62, 
70. 
arcticus, 40, 110, 250, 421. 
Picolaptes affinis lignicida, 602. 
Picus canus gyldenstolpei, 310. 
viridis viridis, 509. 
xanthopyeglus, 303. 
Pigeon, Passenger, 153, 477, 486,605. 
Wood, 511. 
Pinguinus, 596. 
Pinicola enucleator leucura, 254, 
285, 423, 521. 
Pintail, 9, 51, 60, 103, 104. 
Pipilo erythrophthalmus alleni, 55, 
388. 
e. erythrophthalmus, 400. 
maculatus arcticus, 258. 
m. montanus, 73. 
Pipit, 56, 63, 262, 404, 482, 507. 
Sprague’s, 262. 
Tree, 507. 
Pipra aureola aureola, 222. 
galericulata, 469. 
Piranga erythromelas, 403, 575. 
hepatica dextra, 75. 


phoeni- 


Index. Gee 


h. hepatica, 74-75. 
h. oreophasma, 74. 
ludoviciana, 258. 
olivacea, 575 
rubra rubra, 389. 
Pisobia acuminata, 596. 
aurita, 596. 
bairdi, 61, 265, 516. 
damacensis, 595. 
minutilla, 12, 37, 51, 399. 
subminuta, 595. 
Pitta cerulea hosei, 310. 
Planesticus migratorius migratorius, 
56, 63, 306, 405, 584, 585. 
propinquus, 263. 
Platycorax, 443. 
Platyrhynchus auricularis, 312. 
Plautus, 596. 
Plectrophenax nivalis nivalis, 38. 
Plectropterus, 563. 
Plover, Black-bellied, 44, 52, 105, 
265, 399, 511, 586, 589. 
Golden, 13, 265. 
Piping, 39, 351-355, 399, 517, 
566. 
Ringed, 511. 
Snowy, 399. 
Upland, 12, 265, 516, 567. 
Wilson’s, 385. 
Pluvialis, 595. 
Pochard, 461. 
Podiceps nigricollis, 310. 
Podilymbus podiceps, 7, 395. 
Peecilonitta bahamensis bahamen- 
sis, 304. 
b. rubrirostris, 304. 
galapagensis, 304. 
erythrorhyncha, 304, 612. 
spinicauda, 304. 
Pocecetes gramineus gramineus, 54, 
402. 
confinis, 256. 
Poholema, 310. 
Poliopsar leucocephalus annemen- 
sis, 612. 
Pohoptila cerulea cerulea, 405, 584. 


Vol. Go| 
1919 


Polophilus phasianinus melvillensis, 
603. 
Polyborus cheriway, 268. 

auduboni, 268. 

Polysticta, 277, 418. 
Porzana albicollis, 221. 
carolina, 11. 
Pribilof Islands, new birds to the, 
443. 
Priofinus, 267. 
cinereus, 267. 
Procellaria, 276. 
Procellariide, 276. 
Procnopis, 576. 
Progne subis, 258. 

s. subis, 390, 403. 
Protonotaria citrea, 523, 588. 
Prunella modularis modularis, 500. 
Psephotellus chrysopterygius, 604. 
Pseudocolaptes boissoneautii ober- 

holseri, 275. 
Ptarmigan, 61. 
Pterodroma gularis, 267. 

inexpectata, 267, 271, 604. 
Pteroglossus aracari aracari, 218. 
Ptilinopus rivolii buruanus, 312. 
Ptiloxena atroviolacea, 196. 
Publications received, 145, 314, 444. 

618. 
Puffinus chlororhynchus, 487. 
Pygopodes, 593-595. 
Pyromelana, 311. 
Pyrotrogon erythrocephalus anna- 
mensis, 612. 
Pyrrhula pyrrhula europxa, 506. 


QUEBEC, birds of, 472-487. 
Querquedula crecca, 313. 
cyanoptera, 314. 
discors, 9, 397. 
d. albinucha, 455-460. 
Quiscalus «neus, 193. 
agleeus, 54, 193, 402. 
quiscula, 254. 
q. eneus, 554. 
q. agleus, 269, 551. 


Indez. 


659 


q. quiscula, 193, 269, 549. 
q. Tidgwayi, 552. 
q. versicolor, 269. 


Raitt, Florida Clapper, 51. 
King, 277, 384, 398. 
Sora, 11. 
Virginia, 480. 
Wayne’s Clapper, 384. 
Yellow, 264. 
Rallus crepitans scotti, 51. 
c. waynel, 384. 
elegans, 277, 384, 398. 
Ramphastos ariel, 225, 286. 
Rassornis, 129. 
macrurus coincidens, 129. 
m. rogersi, 129. 
m. aruensis, 129. 
Raven, 252, 293, 572. 
Northern, 62. 
Raynor, Horace M., Golden Eagle 
at East Moriches, N. Y., 421. 
Recurvirostra americana, 12. 
Red-head, 462. 
Redpoll, 62, 255, 488, 484, 521. 
Redshank, Common, 512. 
Redstart, 43, 45, 262, 476, 499. 
Red-tail, Western, 61. 
Redwing, 498. 
Florida, 54, 402. 
Regulus calendula, 263, 524, 525. 
ce. calendula, 56, 63, 263, 405. 
ignicapillus ignicapillus, 501. 
satrapa satrapa, 56. 
Reinholdia reinholdi, 604. 
‘Revue Francaise d’Ornithologie,’ 
148, 311, 441,615, reviewed. 
Rhamphococcyx, centralis, 303. 
Rhinochetus jubatus, 321. 
Rhinortha chlorophea fuscigularis, 
612. 
Rhode Island, birds of, 583. 
Rhodophoneus cruentus kordofani- 
cus, 140. 
Richards, Viola F., the early history 
of a Duck Hawk, 349-350. 


660 


Richmond, Charles W., Forster’s 
edition of Levaillant’s ‘Oiseaux 
d’ Afrique,’ 546-549. 

Ridgway, Robert, review of his 
‘Birds of North and Middle 
America,’ Part VIII,’ 595-597. 

Riley, J. H., review of his ‘Anno- 
tated Catalogue of a Collection of 
Birds made in Northeastern 
Siberia by Mr. Copley Amory, 
Jr.,’ 131; notice of his‘ Two New 
Genera and Hight New Birds 
from Celebes,’ 302; notice of his 
‘Six New Birds from Celebes and 
Java,’ 599. 

Riparia riparia, 63, 220, 403, 504. 

Rissa tridactyla tridactyla, 36. 

Robbins, C. A., a colony of Cape 
Cod Piping Plover, 351-355. 

Roberts, Thomas S., notice of his 
‘Water Birds of Minnesota, Past 
and Present,’ 598; notice of his 
‘A Review of the Ornithology of 
Minnesota,’ 598. 

Robin, 45, 56, 63, 106, 205, 217, 405, 

473, 499, 584, 585. 
Western, 263. 

Roosevelt, Theodore, obituary no- 
tice of, 162. 

Ross, Lucretius H., Mourning Dove 
wintering in Vermont, 282. 

Royal Australasian Ornithologists’ 
Union, notice of annual meeting, 
322. 

Royal Society for the Protection of 
Birds, Annual Report, noticed, 
606. 

Rothonia, 148. 

Rough-leg, Ferruginous, 17. 

Rynchops nigra, 396. 


SALPINCTES, 295. 
guadeloupensis, 407. 
obsoletus, 262. 
proximus, 408. 

Saltator striatipectus furax, 602. 
s. speratus, 602. 


Indez. 


Auk 
Oct. 


Sandpiper, Baird’s, 61, 265, 516. 
Buff-breasted, 516. 
Common, 512. 
Green, 512. 
Least, 12, 37, 44, 51, 399, 483. 
Red-backed, 52, 103, 265, 399, 
586. 
Semipalmated, 37, 44, 399. 
Solitary, 12, 483. 
Spotted, 12, 44, 61, 341, 348, 
399, 483. . 
Stilt, 102. 
Western, 399. 
Western Solitary, 61, 587. 
Wood, 512. 
Sapsucker, Yellow-bellied, 53, 250. 
Sarcidiornis sylvicola, 419, 564. 
Saucerottia erythronota, 220. 
Saunders, Aretas A., spring shore- 
birds in Connecticut, 104-105; 
the Rose-breasted Grosbeak in 
Connecticut in November, 114; 
evolution of bird song, 149-151; 
concerning a note of the Long- 
eared Owl, 283; Blue-winged 
Warbler feeding a young Field 
Sparrow, 291; geographical vari- 
ation in the song of the Ruby- 
crowned Kinglet, 525-527; see 
also Pangburn, C. H. 
Saunders, W. E., local decrease of 
warblers in 1917, 116. 
Sauropatis chloris, 600. 
c. azela, 6090. 
ce. chloroptera, 600. 
c. hyperpontia, 600. 
ce. palmeri, 600. 
c. amphiryta, 600. 
Saxicola aurita, 312. 
cenanthe cenanthe, 64. 
rubetra rubreta, 499. 
stapazina, 312. 
torquata rubicola, 499. 
Sayornis pheebe, 54, 251, 401. 
sayus, 62, 71, 251. 
Scexophzethon rubricaudus roths- 
childi, 557. 


Vol. ag | 
1919 


r. rubricaudus, 557. 
Scaup, Greater, 463. 
Lesser, 463, 471. 
Sclater, W. L., notice of his ‘Aves’ 
in the Zoological Record, 133. 

Sclerurus mexicanus certus, 310. 
bahiz, 310. 
macconnelli, 310. 
peruvianus, 310. 
rufigularis, 219. 

Scolopax rusticola, 512. 

Scoter, White-winged, 10, 37. 

Scotiaptex nebulosa, 20. 
nebulosa, 61. 

Seiurus aurocapillus, 261-404, 532. 
a. furvior, 271. 
motacilla, 404. 
noveboracensis notabilis, 63, 

261. 

Serinus buchanani, 310. 
canarius serinus, 505. 

Seton, Ernest T., on the popular 

names of birds, 229-235. 

Setophaga picta picta, 469. 
ruticilla, 43, 262. 

Shearwater, Wedge-tailed, 487. 

Shelldrake, Ruddy, 561. 

Shoveller, 9, 104. 

Shrike, Great Gray, 503. 
Loggerhead, 55, 288, 390, 403. 
Migrant, 474, 523. 

Northern, 259, 473, 484. 
Red-backed, 503. 
White-rumped, 259. 
Woodchat, 503. 

Shufeldt, R. W., review of his ‘The 
Skeleton of the Kea Parrot of 
New Zealand (Nestor notabilis),’ 
131; Australia’s effort to save 
her bird fauna, 151-152; notice 
of his ‘Notes on the Osteology of 
the Young of the Hoatzin (Opis- 
thocomus cristatus) and Other 
Points on its Morphology,’ 302; 
a three-legged Robin, 585. 

Sialia currucoides, 263. 


Index. 


661 


slalis sialis, 56, 405, 524. 
wilsoni, 185. 

Siberia, birds of, 131. 

Sieberocitta, 269. 

Simalur Island, birds of, 601. 

Siskin, 505. 

Pine, 42, 44, 255, 483. 

Sitta carolinensis carolinensis, 524. 
c. tenuissima, 271. 
canadensis, 262, 423, 584. 
europea europea, 502. 
pusilla, 56, 590. 

Skimmer, Black, 396. 

Skylark, 508. 

Smith, F. C., Evening Grosbeaks at 

Boonville, N. Y., 573. 

Smithsonian African Expedition, 

634. 
Snipe, Common, 512. 
Wilson’s, 12, 39, 51, 61, 398, 
483. 
Snyder, LeRoy, Harris’s Hawk in 
Kansas, 567. 
Solitaire, Townsend’s, 73. 
Somateria spectabilis, 515. 
Song, 300, 339-348, 528-536. 
Soper, J. Dewey, growth of a young 
Killdeer (Oxyechus v. vociferus) ; 
566; abnormal beak of a Horned 
Lark, 571. 
Sora, 481. 
South America, birds of, 88-89, 
125-127, 273-276. 

‘South Australian Ornithologist,’ 
reviewed, 143, 441. 

South Carolina, birds of, 489-492, 
118. 

Sparrow, Bachman’s, 522. 

Cape Sable Seaside, 86-87. 
Chipping, 44, 55, 402, 522. 
Clay-colored, 257. 

Field, 291, 402, 525. 

Fox, 63, 257, 482. 
Gambel’s, 63, 256. 
Harris’s, 180-190. 

Hedge, 500. 


662 


Henslow’s, 402, 522, 574. 
House, 506. 
Lark, 256. 
Leconte’s, 256, 522. 
Lincoln’s, 42, 44, 257. 
Nelson’s, 54, 256, 522. 
Pine Woods, 403. 
Savannah, 256, 402. 
Scott’s Seaside, 54, 402. 
Song, 473, 525. 
Swamp, 55, 257, 403. 
Tree, 38, 114, 482, 506. 
Vesper, 54, 402. 
Western Chipping, 257. 
Western Grasshopper, 287. 
Western Savannah, 256, 402. 
Western Tree, 63, 257. 
Western Vesper, 256. 
White-crowned, 474, 482. 
White-throated, 54, 256. 
Spatula clypeata, 9. 
Sphyrapicus varius, 250. 
v. varius, 57. 
Spinus ictericus magnirostris, 616. 
pinus, 42, 255. 
spinus spinus, 505. 
Spiza americana, 388, 522, 575. 
Spizaetus batesi, 613. 
Spizella, 
canadensis, 272. 
monticola, 272. 
m. monticola, 38, 114. 
m. ochracea, 63, 257. 
pallida, 257. 
passerina arizona, 257. 
p. passerina, 55, 402, 522. 
pusilla, 291, 525. 
p. pusilla, 402. 
Spizixus semitorquus, 313. 
Spoonbill, Roseate, 565, 566. 
Sporophila bouvroni des, 
223. 
castaneiventris, 223. 
lineola, 220. 
ocellata, 220. 
pileata, 309. 


220, 


Auk 


Index. Oct: 


Squatarola squatarola, 52, 105, 265, 
399, 511, 586, 589. 
Ss. cynosure, 597. 

Starling, 502. 

Steganopus tricolor, 12, 516. 

Stejneger, L., personal mention, 452. 

Stelgidopteryx serripennis, 115, 302. 

523. 

Stellaria, 418. 

Stelleria, 277. 

Stephens, Frank, notice of his ‘An 
Annotated List of the Birds of 
San Diego County, California,’ 
437. 

Stercorarius longicaudus, 276. 

parisiticus, 617. 

Sterna anaetheta nelsoni, 596. 
a. recognita, 596. 
antillarum, 396. 
caspia, 395, 514, 617. 
forsteri, 8, 514. 
hirundo, 396. 
maxima, 395. 
sandvicensis acuflavida, 396. 

Sternula, 596. 

a. browni, 596. 

Stilt, Black-necked, 587. 

Stone, Witmer, review of his ‘Birds 
of the Panama Canal Zone,’ 302; 
identifications: reply to P. A. 
Taverner, 317, 448; note on 
Audubon’s bibliography, 380; oc- 
currence of the Red Phalarope 
in Pennsylvania, 419; Evening 
Grosbeak in New Jersey, 423; 
early occurrence of the Red- 
breasted Nuthatch in New Jersey, 
423; editions of Baird, Cassin and 
Lawrence’s ‘ Birds of North Amer- 
ica,’ 428-430; Jacob Post Giraud 
and his works, 464-472; personal 
mention, 635. 

Stonechat, 499. 

Stoporala, 442. 

Storer, Tracy I., 
Joseph. 


see Grinnell, 


Vol. rr peal 
1919 


Streptoceryle, 267. 
alcyon, 272. 

a. caurina, 272. 

Streptopelia turtur turtur, 511. 

Strix aluco aluco, 510. 
varia helveola, 283. 

v. varia, 518. 

Struthio camelus syriacus, 612. 

Sturnella, 197. ‘ 
magna argutula, 54, 402, 520. 
neglecta, 253. 

Sturnus vulgaris vulgaris, 502. 

v. zetlandicus, 312. 

Sula bassana, 37. 

Sulita, 417. 

Surnia ulula, 21. 

u. caparoch, 62. 

Swales, B. H., Stilt Sandpiper 
(Micropalama himantopus) in 
Wyoming, 102. 

Swallow, Bank, 44, 63, 403. 

Barn, 259, 403. 

Chimney, 503. 

Cliff, 44, 68, 258, 522. 
Northern Violet-green, 63. 
Rough-winged, 523. 

Tree, 44, 55, 403, 523, 577. 

Swan, 11. 

Trumpeter, 564. 

Swarth, H. S., notice of his ‘Three 
New Subspecies of Passerella ili- 
aca,’ 437; personal mention, 635. 

Swift, 508. 

Chimney, 44, 401. 

Sylvia atricapilla atricapilla, 
communis communis, 500. 
halseyii, 469. 
hortensis hortensis, 500. 
olivacea, 469. 
undata undata, 500. 

Sylvietta rufescens transvaalensis, 

140. 
Synallaxis brachyurus chapmani, 
601. 
frontalis juae, 274. 
gujanensis huallagee, 274. 


Index. 


663 


macconnelli, 612. 

peruviana, 274. 

scutata neglecta, 275. 
semicinerea pallidiceps, 275. 


TacuyBaptus philippensis, 617. 
Tachycineta thalassina lepida, Le 
Tachytriorchis, 567. 
albicaudatus colonus, 568. 
a. exiguus, 568. 
a. sennetti, 568. 
Tambelan Islands, birds of, 600. 
Tanager, Scarlet, 44, 403, 477. 
Summer, 389. 
Western, 258. 
Tanagra aurea cynophora, 145.. 
catasticta, 145. 
gnatho, 602. 
laniirostris, 145. 
1. zopholega 
lauta, 602. 
proba, 602. 
minuta, 145. 
olivacea, 575. 
violacea pampolla, 145. 
Tangara, 576. 
argentea, 577. 
atroccerulea, 577. 
branicku, 577. 
cabanisi, 577. 
cyanoptera, 577. 
dowi, 577. 
fucosus, 577. 
fulvicervix, 577. 
heinei, 577. 
melanitis, 577. 
nigroviridis, 576. 
vassoru, 577. 
Tangavius zeneus, 197. 
Tapera nevia, 218. 
Taraba major approximans, 88. 
Taverner, P. A., the birds of the Red 
Deer River, Alberta, 1-21, 248- 
265; review of his ‘Addenda to 
the Birds of Jasper Park, Alberta,’ 
132; review of his ‘The Hawks of 


664 


the Canadian Prairie Province in 
their Relation to Agriculture,’ 
132; identifications, characters vs. 
geography, 316, 446-448; notice 
of his ‘ Birds of Shoal Lake, Man.,’ 
617; personal mention, 452. 

Taylor, W. P., an additional record 
of Ammodramus savannarum bi- 
maculaius in eastern Washington, 
287. : 

Taylor, Warner, further record of 
the European Widgeon at Madi- 
son, Wis., 277. 

Teal, Blue-winged, 9, 103, 397, 455- 

460. 
European, 81. 
Green-winged, 9, 50, 60, 104. 
Southern, 455-460.. 
Telacanthura, 129. 
Telmatodytes palustris, 262. 
p. griseus, 392. 
p. iliacus, 56. 
p. thryophilus, 56. 
Tern, Black, 8, 514. 
Cabot’s, 396. 
Caspian, 395, 514. 
Common, 8, 44, 396. 
Forster’s, 8, 514. 
Least, 396. 
Royal, 395. 
Texas, birds of, 465. 
Thalassarche, 267. 
culminata culminata, 267. 

Thalasseus, 596. 

Thalassidroma, 276. 

Thalassoaétus pelagicus, 443. 

Thalassogeron, 267. 

chrysostomus culminatus, 267. 

Thamnophilus amazonicus, 219. 

Thayer, A. H., exhibition of pictures 
illustrating camouflage, 158. 

Thereiceryx lineatus intermedius, 

310. 
Thrasaétos harpyia, 272. 
Thrasher, Brown, 56, 262, 392 
405. 
Thraupis palmarum melanopterum, 
220. 


Index Oct 


p. palmarum, 220. 
Thrush, Gray-cheeked, 63. 
Hermit, 45, 56, 263, 405. 


Mistle, 498. 

Olive-backed, 45, 63, 342, 345, 
471, 478. 

Russet-backed, 263. 

Song, 498. 


Willow, 263. 

Thryomanes bewicki bewicki, 405. 
Thryothorus ludovicianus ludovi- 
cianus, 56, 289, 392, 405, 583. 

Thryospiza mirabilis, 86-87. 

Thyellodroma chlororhyncha, 267. 

cuneata, 267. 

Tiga javensis, 286. 

Tinamou, 223-225. 

Tinamus, 223-225. 

subcristatus, 225. 

Tit, Long-tailed, 501. 

Great, 501. 
Blue, 501. 
Crested, 502. 

Titmouse, Tufted, 56, 524. 

‘Tori,’ reviewed, 616. 

Torrey, Ruth M., and Knight, 
Martha G., a self-tamed Ruffed 
Grouse, 279. 

Totanus melanoleucus, 12, 52, 264, 

399. 
flavipes, 12, 37, 105, 264. 

Tothill, John D., notice of his ‘The 
Meaning of Natural Control,’ 608. 

Toucan, 225. 

Towhee, 403. 

Arctic, 258. 
Spurred, 73. 
White-eyed, 55, 388. 

Townsend, C. W., announcement 
of a supplement to his ‘Birds of 
Essex County, Mass.,’ 158; note 
on Audubon’s Labrador trip, 424; 
destruction of sea birds in Labra- 
dor, 427; feeding of Grackles, 627. 

Toxostoma redivivum helyum, 271. 

rufum, 56, 262, 392, 405. 

Treron calva peensis, 312. 

c. brevicauda, 312. 


Vol. eri 
1919 


c. sejuncta, 312. 

curvirostra heineni, 312. 
Tribonyx ventralis, 418. 
Tringa, 596. 

canutus, 105, 516. 

glareola, 512. 

nebularia, 513. 

ocrophus, 512. 

totanus, 512. 
Triorchis, 282. 
Troglodytes aédon aédon, 56, 405. 

aé. parkmani, 262. 

troglodytes troglodytes, 502. 
Tropic-bird, Yellow-billed, 587. 
Truplialis bellicosus, 197. 

defillipi, 197. 

falklandicus, 197. 

militaris, 197. 
Tryngites subruficollis, 516. 
Tschagra senegala sudanensis, 140. 
Turacus, 311. 
Turdus merula merula, 498. 

minor, 471. 

musicus, 498. 

olivaceus, 471. 

philomelus philomelus, 498. 

pilaris, 498. 

solitarius, 471. 

viscivorus viscivorus, 498. 
Turnstone, Ruddy, 105, 400. 
Tuttle, H. E., some notes on the 

drumming of the Ruffed Grouse, 
325-339. 
Tympanuchus americanus, 13. 
Tyrannus tyrannus, 41, 251, 387, 
401. 

verticalis, 71, 251. 
Tyto alba pratincola, 272. 

perlata pratincola, 272. 


U.S. Natrionat Museum, growth of 
collection of, 322. 

U.S. National Parks, birds of, 322. 

Upupa epops epops, 509. 

Uria ringvia, 596. 

Urochroma batavica, 218. 

Urodynamis taitensis belli, 310. 


Index. 


665 


Urogalba paradisea, 286. 
Utah, birds of, 565. 


VANELLUS vanellus, 512. 
VanOort, E. D., review of his ‘ Birds 
of the Netherlands,’ 127. 
Veles, 304. 
Venezuela, birds of, 419. 
Vermivora celata, 260. 
c. celata, 55, 404, 579, 588. 
chrysoptera, 292. 
lawrencel, 237. 
leucobronchialis, 237, 292. 
peregrina, 42, 260, 583. 
pinus, 291, 292, 525. 
ruficapilla, 293. 
Vermont, birds of, 282. 
Vetola, 596. 
Vidgenia, 130, 300. 
Vireo, Blue-headed, 44, 55, 259, 404, 
478. 
Philadelphia, 42, 259, 481, 486. 
Red-eyed, 478, 588. 
Solitary, 294. 
Warbling, 259, 475, 478. 
White-eyed, 390. 
Vireo griseus griseus, 390. 
Vireosylva gilva gilva, 259. 
olivacea, 38, 115, 259, 390, 
588. 
philadelphica, 42, 259, 486. 
Virginia, birds of, 574, 575. 
Vultur bengalensis, 548. 
kolbii, 548. 
monachus, 548. 
papa, 548. 
percnopterus, 548. 
tracheliotus, 548. 
Vulture, Black, 52, 400. 
Turkey, 52, 400, 517, 567. 


WaatalL, Gray-headed, 507. 
White, 507. 
Warbler, Alaska Yellow, 63. 
Bay-breasted, 43, 45, 226, 340, 
345, 475, 477. 
Black-and-White, 44, 259. 


666 


Index. 


lee 


Oct. 

Blackburnian, 226, 342-348, Yellow Palm, 48, 45, 404, 474, 
589. 482. 

Black-throated Blue, 45, 226, Yellow-throated, 55, 404, 580, 
294, 474, 475, 477, 523, 579, 588. 


589. 

Black-throated Green, 48, 45, 
226, 261, 342-347, 474, 475, 
589. 

Black-poll, 226, 261, 475, 48 

Blue-winged, 291, 292, 525, 57 

Canada, 45, 262, 294, 474, 475, 
589. 

Cape May, 38, 45, 226, 340, 476, 
481. 

Cerulean, 582. 

Cetti’s, 500. 

Chestnut-sided, 340, 345, 475, 
476, 589. 

Dartford, 500. 

Garden, 500. 

Golden-winged, 292, 579. 

Hooded, 45, 262, 589. 

Kentucky, 523. 

Lawrence’s, 579. 

Magnolia, 45, 226, 261, 342- 
346, 475, 589. 

Myrtle, 45, 55, 63, 226, 260, 
341, 342, 404, 483, 581. 

Nashville, 45, 293, 342, 474, 476, 


482, 589. 

Northern Parula, 438, 45, 342, 
474, 475. 

Orange-crowned, 55, 260, 404, 
579, 588. 


Ralm;, 55, 261° 

Parula, 390, 404. 

Pine, 55, 404, 474, 481. 

Prairie, 391, 404, 523, 589. 

Prothonotary, 523, 588. 

Sedge, 500. 

Tennessee, 42, 45, 260, 474, 481, 
482, 583. 

Wayne’s, 489-492. 

Willow, 500. 

Wilson’s, 45, 262, 474, 481. 

Yellow, 39, 45, 226, 260, 341, 
475, 476, 589. 


Warsaw Museum, birds of the, 461. 
Washington, birds of, 287. 
Water-Thrush, 476. 

Grinnell’s, 63, 261. 

Louisiana, 404, 589. 

Water-Turkey, 283. 

Waxwing, Bohemian, 259. 

Cedar, 259, 342, 523. 

Wayne, Arthur T., correction to 
his ‘Some Additions and other 
Records new to the Fauna of 
South Carolina,’ 118; early nest- 
ing of the Loggerhead Shrike 
(Lanius ludovicianus) at Savan- 
nah, Ga., 288; the nest and eggs 
of Wayne’s Warbler taken near 
Mt. Pleasant, S. C., 489-492. 

West Chester Bird Club, 606. 

West Indies, birds of, 136. 

Wetmore, Alexander, notes on the 
structure of the palate in the 
Icteride, 190-197; review of his 
‘On the Anatomy of Nyctibius 
with Notes on Allied Birds,’ 135; 
review of his ‘Bones of Birds 
Collected by Theodor De Booy 
from Kitchen Midden Deposits 
in the Islands of St. Thomas and 
St. Croix,’ 136; a note on the 
decrease of the Carolina Wren 
near Washington, 289; notice 
of his observations of lead poison- 
ing in ducks, 301, 605. 

Weygandt, Cornelius, Waterton on 
bird song, 118. 

Wheatear, 64, 489. 

Whip-poor-will, 475, 519. 

White, Francis Beach, the Dick- 
cissel in New Hampshire, 288. 
White, 8S. A., notice of his ‘The 
Gawler Range,’ 601; notice of his 
‘Ooldea on the East-West Rail- 

way,’ etc. 601. 


Vol. rail 
1919 


Whitethroat, 500. 

Widgeon, American, 60. 

European, 277, 514, 560. 
Wiley, Leo, obituary notice of, 629. 
Willet, 12, 385. 

Western, 52, 399. 

Williams, John, notes from St. 
Marks, Florida, 586. 

Williams, R. W., winter birds of 
East Goose Creek, Florida, 45- 
56. 

Wilmot, Nelson E., Killdeer (Oxye- 
chus vociferus) in West Haven, 
Conn., 105. 

Wilson, Alexander Capt. Brown’s 
illustrations to the American 
Ornithology of, 623. 

Wilson, Etta S., late nesting of the 
Red-eyed Vireo in Detroit, Mich., 
115; Snowy Owl in Detroit, 
Michigan, 569; strange conduct 
of a Robin, 584. 

Wilson, Francis M., notice of his 
brief on the Migratory Bird 
Treaty, 606. 

‘Wilson Bulletin, The,’ reviewed, 
130, 308, 611. 

Wilsonia canadensis, 262. 

citrina, 391. 

pusilla pusilla, 262. 

Winchat, 499. 

Wisconsin, 277. 

Witherby, H. F., et al, review of 
their ‘A Practical Handbook of 
British Birds,’ 4382, 597. 

Witherby, H. F., personal mention, 
635. 

Woodcock, 37, 512. 

Woodlark, 508. 

Woodpecker, Alaska Three-toed, 

62, 70. 
Arctic Three-toed, 40, 110, 250, 
421. 

Downy, 608. 

Great Spotted, 509. 

Green, 509. 

Hairy, 608. 


Index. 


667 


Lesser Spotted, 509. 
Northern Hairy, 40, 248. 
Northern Pileated, 293. 
Pileated, 53, 250, 484, 588. 
Red-bellied, 53, 401. 
Red-headed, 386, 401, 519. 
Red-cockaded, 53, 401. 
Rocky Mountain Hairy, 301. 
Southern Downy, 53, 401. 

Wren, 502. 

Bewick’s, 405. 

Carolina, 56, 289, 392, 405, 583. 
Fire-crested, 501. 

House, 56, 405, 479. 
Long-billed Marsh, 262. 
Prairie Marsh, 56. 
Short-billed Marsh, 524, 583. 
Western House, 262. 
Worthington’s Marsh, 392. 

Wright, A. H., Henslow’s Sparrow 
in New York and Virginia, 574; 
the Dickcissel in Virginia, 575; 
the Yellow-throated Warbler in 
central New York, 580. 

Wright, Horace W., Arctic Three- 
toed Woodpecker (Picoides arcti- 
cus) at Belmont, Mass., 110; 
Black Duck nesting in Boston 
Public Garden, 355-367. 

Wyoming, birds of, 102, 276. 


XANTHOCEPHALUS xanthocephalus, 
520. 

Xanthopsar imthurmi, 197. 

Xenicopsoides, 273. 

Xenops genibarbis cayoensis, 310. 

Xiphocolaptes bahiae, 540. 

Xiphorhynchus guttatoides, 219. 
guttatus sororius, 219. 
pardalotus, 220. 


YELLOW-LEGS, 37, 103, 105, 264. 
Greater, 12, 52, 103, 264, 483. 
Lesser, 12. 

Yellow-throat, Florida, 55, 404. 
Maryland, 341, 342, 475. 
Western, 261. 


668 


Yungipicus mitchellii, 303. 


Index. ee 


Zimmer, J. T., notice of his ‘A Few 


moluccensis, 303. Birds from Luzon and Mindoro,’ 
135. 
ZAMELODIA, 115. Zonotrichia albicollis, 54, 256, 342. 


ludoviciana, 114, 258, 403. 
melanocephala, 258. 
microrhyncha, 410, 414. 

Zenaida auriculata noronha, 309. 
zenaida, 400. 


leucophrys gambeli, 63, 256. 

querula, 180-190. 
Zoonavena, 129. 

francica oberholseri, 130. 
Zosterops atrifrons, 599. 


Zenaidura macroura carolinensis, 37, bayeri, 443. 
52, 106, 400. 
ERRATA. 
Page 15, line 4, for hudsonicus read hudsonius. 
“87, “ 15 from bottom, for hudsonicus read hudsonius. 
“71, “ 12 from bottom, for sayi read sayus. 
“138, “ 20, for county read country. 
© 143°" 21) for Ke read IM: 
“ 145, “ 8 from bottom, for Lawler read Lawyer. 
“ 158, “ 11, for Oberholder read Oberholser. 
*) 157, “ 18 from bottom) for L. H. read S. H. 
“ 162, “ 9, for Lieut. read Lieut.-Col. 
“ 163, “ 4, for December 26 read December 25. 
“ 286, “ 16, for Megalaima read Megaleema. 
“ 304, “ 22 for Peles read Veles. 
“308, “ 9 from bottom, for Erkblaw read Ekblaw. 
“ 309, “ 16, for Simonds read Simons. 
“ 310, “ 2 from bottom for Woodchuck read Woodcock. 
“312, “ 16, for Nothorchilus read Notorchilus. 
“ 323, “ 10, for 85 read 83. 


DATES OF ISSUE. 


Volume XXXV, No. 4.— October 16, 1918. 
Volume XXXVI, No. 1.— January 5, 1919. 
Volume XXXVI, No. 2.— April 8, 1919. 
Volume XXXVI, No. 3.— June 28, 1919. 


i if He 

A) \ ill) vf 

‘ Mi wy 
Na 


a ] i) 1) 


: Py 
Mf whee, teu) 
ais Ni Lit 
: Wi 
"i 
AeieyAl! FM } 
j Ah Sea er hs , aye. \ Wik yi on A 


4 
4 t / iy 
ihe TT ye TO ee Um 
Rl A } Hh Pa 
‘ 


), 
Nada Gn 
th Male 


ai abe 
Veal " fal ‘ 
Nan ea ‘ 
fe ti hy i " Aton ' 


i aT, f ay hen Ai 
ae’ ee ‘ x di vy | Ay ee Ai 
ae i Wy, Ie Ha a 
rn 7 2 ie eae lta AND a ni f 1 


ni 

i a 

i 

r = sh , 4: 

; {i iM ey) 
i 


5 q 

j a 

(P ENC ety 
Ai ih wash PHD) on i 


ih 
AN hd a 
wie 


Uae 


Naka 


" a Hi "i 


iN 
i My 
n su A 
nN a ‘ 
Mia vil wh 
Mila 


neh aa mn y : i \ lee ey mi 
ea yi nies 
ah he i} 


: ty i sf RT) ; } i 
te oe : vie Mi i "i thet ini 
Py , \ ! y cay) 1 ms All v 


Mas 1 


He! 
HY a ay ih rl i : 


i) 
yi 


y rT ry in aa 


a tt \- 


Nath 
"i ht 


At il r f i Wi) vy i ‘ 
a 7 iF ASM A f . Waar 4 
‘ihn de y ‘i U vA y an 7 3 hy nh 
ii WN oe _) A hveny i 4 a vii na i a 
z eit My 


tay th ANS ' 


i BAY 4 wah rh 


in (RACY We 
4) ; ; he eile TU RRM 6 rh) Ae Wt 
i tie mk Ai eh 41 ae Ca Pa may 
a i BU ay) x nn ban i 
‘ j 


Continued from page 2 of cover. 


‘THE AUK,’ published quarterly as the Organ of the AMpRiIcAN ORNITHOL- 
oaists’ UNION,, is edited, beginning with volume for 1912, by Dr. WrTMER STONE. 
Terms :— $3.00 a year, including postage, strictly in advance. Single num- 
bers, 75 cents. Free to Honorary Fellows, and to Fellows, Members, and Asso- 
ciates of the A. O. U. not in arrears for dues. 
ae OrricE OF PUBLICATION Is AT 30 BoyisTon St., CamBripGn, Boston) 
ASS. 


Subscriptions may also be addressed to Dr. JonatHan Dwicut, Business 
Manager, 43, W. 70TH St., New York, N. Y. Foreign Subscribers may 
obtain ‘TH Aux’ through WitTHERBY & Co., 326, HtaH HoLBorn, Lonpon, W. Cy 


All articles and communications intended for publication and all books 
and publications for notice, may be sent to DR. WITMER STONE, 
ACADEMY OF NATURAL ScrencEsS, LoGAN SQUARE, PHILADELPHIA, PA. 


Manuscripts for general articles must await their turn for publication if others 
are already on file but they must be in the editor’s hands at least six weeks, before 
the date of issue of the number for which they are intended, and manuscripts 
for ‘ General Notes’, ‘ Recent Literature’, etc., not later than the first of the month 
preceding the date of the number in which it is desired they shall appear. 


PUBLICATIONS OF THE 


AMERICAN ORNITHOLOGISTS’ UNION 


FOR SALE AT THE FOLLOWING PRICES: 


The Auk. Complete set, Volumes I-XXXVI, (1884-1919) in origi- 
nal covers, $125.00. Volumes I-VI are sold only with complete 
sets, other volumes, $3.00 each; 75 cents for single numbers. 

Index to The Auk (Vols. I-X XVII, 1884-1900) and Bulletin of the 
Nuttall Ornithological Club (Vols. I-VIII, 1876-1883), Svo, pp. 
vii + 426, 1908. Cloth, $3.75; paper, $3.25. 

Index to The Auk (Vols. XXVIII-XXXVII, 1901-1910), 8vo, pp. 
Xvili +250, 1915. Cloth, $3.00; paper, $2.00. 

Check-List of North American Birds. Third edition, revised. 

_ 1910. Cloth, 8vo, pp. 426, and 2 maps. $2.50, net, postage 
25 cents. Second edition, revised, 1895. Cloth, 8vo, pp. xi + 372. 
$1.15. Original edition 1886. Out of print. 

Abridged Check-List of North American Birds. 1889. (Abridged 
and revised from the original edition). Paper, 8vo, pp. 71, printed 
on one side of the page. 25 cents. 

Pocket Check-List of North American Birds. (Abridged from 
the third edition). Flexible cover, 3 X< 5% inches. 25 cents. 
10 copies for $2.00. 

Code of Nomenclature. Revised edition, 1908. Paper, 8vo, pp. 
Ixxxv. 50 cents. 

Original edition, 1892. Paper, 8vo, pp. iv + 72. 25 cents. 


A. O. U. Official Badge. An attractive gold and blue enamel 
pin, with Auk design, for use at meetings or on other 
occasions. Post-paid 50 cents. 


Address JONATHAN DWIGHT _ 
4B NN SLO th OteR New York, N. Y. 


MEETINGS 


OF THE 


American Ornithologists’ Union 


Since its organization in 1883 the American Ornithologists’ Union has 
held one special and 35 annual meetings. 

The number of Fellows (known as motive Members prior to 1902) has 
always been limited to 50 and the number present at any meeting has 
varied from 7 to 28. The attendance of other classes of members in 
recent years ae over 100. 


Total 

Fellows | Mem- 

Meeting Date Place Present | bership 
1 1883, Sept. 26-28 1st New York 21 23 
2 | 1884, Sept. 30-Oct. 2} 2d New York 16 143 
3. | 1885, Nov. 17-18 3d New York 16 201 
4 | 1886, Nov. 16-18 1st Washington 20 251 
5 | 1887, Oct. 11-13 1st Boston Ae 284. 
6 | 1888, Nov. 13-15 2d Washington 20)" }298 
7 | 1889, Nov. 12-15 4th New York 20 400 
8 | 1890, Nov. 18-20 3d Washington 20 465 
9 | 1891, Nov. 17-19 5th New York 14 493 
10 | 1892, Nov. 15-17 4th Washington 20 557 
11 | 1893, Nov. 20-23 2d Cambridge 17 582 
12 | 1894, Nov. 12-15 6th New York 15 616 
13 | 1895, Nov. 11-14 5th Washington 19 667 
14 | 1896, Nov. 9-12 3d Cambridge 14 |" 673 
15 | 1897, Nov. 8-11 7th New York 18 679 
16 | 1898, Nov. 14-17 6th Washington 21 695 
17 | 1899, Nov. 13-16 Ist Philadelphia 16 744 
18 | 1900, Nov. 12-15 4th Cambridge 19 748 
19 | 1901, Nov. 11-14 8th New York HS 738 
20 | 1902, Nov. 17-20 7th Washington 20 753 
20a | 1903, May 15-16 Ist San Francisco rs ania 
21 | 1903, Nov. 16-19 2d Philadelphia 19 775 
22 | 1904, Nov. 28—Dec. 1) 5th Cambridge 17 808 
23 | 1905, Nov. 13-16 9th New York 1? 860 
24 | 1906, Nov. 12-15 Sth Washington 24 750 
25 | 1907, Dec. 9-12 3d Philadelphia 20 850 
26 | 1908, Nov. 16-19 6th Cambridge 17 | 888 
27 | 1909, Dec. 6-9 10th New York 19 866 
28 | 1910, Nov. 14-17 9th Washington 23 897 

29 | ¥911, Nov. 13-16 4th Philadelphia 18 SSN: 

30 | 1912, Nov. 11-14 7th Cambridge 18 929 
31 |! 1913, Nov. 10-13 11th New York 28 992 
32 | 1914, Apr. 6-9 10th Washington Bids LOD. 
33 | 1915, May 17-20 2d San Francisco 1D ES ul Ea 8 
34 | 1916, Nov. 18-16 5th Philadelphia 260 eon 
35. | 1917, Nov. 12-15 8th Cambridge 21 891 
36 | 1918, Nov. 11 12th New York. - 14 953 


The Heke regular rieatne —_ itp 37th Stated — will be held at New York, 
Nov. 11-13, 19 

* Decrease ae ee to change from Spring to Fall leaving 18 months 
without an election. 


ela 


i 


Wes 
Tey i! 
Mh Hi 


a aay Ay, 
it Mit il i 


ptt | 
he) H 


LAY 


HELL APAR) 


Vann 
es 
ay 


ii H aye 4 
PARE ON Desk 


if 
Hil! a mie 
ie yi f M4 ny ’ 
a 


qj 


[ 


hrs ah 
i) ¢ ip Le 
. ee Di 1 
eon HY fh 
‘< ‘ y ir 
Ul 


Dita by 

a 
bp 
it ig ay 
hai 1A. 


J 
yay inn’ i 
sah eile Fy 
‘ 4 yi 


a 


ai ny , 


t 
Crh igh 1 
ce LN 
nue 
HW 1 Wi 


be 
a ck 
i 


‘ee 


ane 
‘i 


. «ie 


q aa Qs 
AR saptarsaAaA A | wlan 
aoe ND bel olen Be feral Aa Agha lye’ : Pe ap he Ww ’ 
PP altel eidelel || 1a a-5-- Sua eghnal! é merreeny | trial) || ela fa} 
OTT tients, A, gafananai* f ae ae aaa ki peas" GEETOY z neal? A? 
, Aa mame & r’ tal | A 2 nas Lorin’. TY = ones ame or é : Pan » & me 
‘aimbl | ARR rm Ty A, ee. ie BEaMeaBaore came cage om THHTTTYT 
Jah ee ‘Squat a 3 \ a - MALL i! A tot Pa es -" 
RAea,  £.., ‘4 "a Ang ge Aaag,| : Sade eel | OL) | eeeiae 
‘anaatene aneahaa ba! age’ ae beet Lau 
1 lat] | was ALE 
bee WATT 


avian ms 
ah aR a =r 
WAM RAR RS SRE 


. ee Ane 
Raann nna Sa e Ra apne WAS AG Is 
» m4 += 4 td 
eee cain ine MAA ARsosascas 
ey 2s Sie a | a By ae = é 8ge 
ar AKA ae ae ~a" ™ 
SAgaa% SA dam oe Poi it tere 
AAA Sipe Ree 


Aha sAAAUAAA Alia 
iP esedaRose. can! | tli 

0 t8AAB Ann, 25 Pena, aa... ee a ws 
bode eee | : 
~h p 


mS a5 
ot RA = 
» 


en 
a gn 14 ama Oe 


’ Aes | maehhhuia 


. 2 


F WuApawes . 
rv | pasAeeee Seer’, | 
meen Dee ahaa , 


~ 


i. MAGRBAASD SAA AD) ba 


3 Pe a oP , — : ~w 
NY ee eer eon eee 


tae ; A an, 

Orme tt MAPA, Pee RERGEE PLU) al ha 
sam. nny )) | eke A an " 

i annaAnn SN pepereed 


Ro eT 
MiTi ILE (gee ee Sa 
.s / p Rdee enn ee a TTY ||| } | galnnat Pec eee Pe 
a eeeneeee aA Aime f 7 pe Shay a a ns aaa a ay ; mn ey F AH TPS nw 
ee entedaas ~~ Saas. f Ja, ial saataaan, . ae >= on Py | 
as o_ : eles @ 2 3 Maan 
i tt Lal YT | Loe 7AR, AUR al AECL PAAR Pa y chogeeut ew 
oaims a Hyp tl ry ‘ 7} A a, > 2a a. ny] Lee i=4e4, i a. .08 ree SOR iran 
+ a ie i y Vt i —e = 2 s % 3 or e \ 
lkdlaat ass ninaabag tt | preston ny gi) ee ana TTR 
{ Be ( ae os ; ’ a =i s 7 Lat% doch heiot + ‘ Xe”). 
NAR r fume UR E : B : ig MAK) Uae aa Le te ot “li 
A Ne: ih tare ee E : r { a Be } ei s Pa ac 
Ly & _{ - pe Ate aren i ft. Py bauer 
iagnagaaer one YY] ~ ' aie! Nala | Star oY ee a Aaa fA mn WO oo gmm pawenans 
amen? UMA aes Se PIPPIN TH || 
sone pet EDF) Hae a ) i Vy af yo anne: WY fa sith As@nnhoanae: oan eena 
a ae & ~ = 5 } 5 vas fe tg 
PS a mw ; & : i 
. ; ne! ywhQhNNA Na LY ® NA Invceetearee a RAP Wee | 
PTH ne Mes ‘AA Masse Bana, Ca BBone, ry te 
Se pa—w4N8 Jaman "ating : RA A 1 im = Bi { por Sa 2 EEE: A me ma my x mane 
1 See Gea - ie) REPT ee as vad Ln ave we 
. a dod gis , pea RuAAABARLENA | 
aps titin esi aacanramnait 
ane i apAnn dl) ty ponuih 
BARS AA Ln eet TT aaeaanannagAQ sas 
wie des ‘als : : pert ok Peel | | 2 Ag aa pp 6 bap hae a “Ss 
: < rT , , : ; ag r rel | aae Pier! PEAR Ae ar te} 
aaa PAN ITT hi rae inna ues all 
OARAA SB ayn Saag a,™ Nava: = a 
vamos yy fae meee Tere erp Y epeihenaen prmaneetty 
ARR ARR AAR SAA mR ~-  atele! a s Fo! iis (Rade elbega cba : 3 % Ee ‘a 7@hh.07 af ANS 
~ » “4 ~~ > \ eae 2a Re ; > aft Mh fale Pint 
| pe Sve NAF PeNS YN ee™ 
papcd pete & _* 4 Le we YN 
~“Aeh.<* si Pitot + fol 
wee 5 
Polo be ba od 


: nb bd th 
. j a age aia! Perea, Yor Ty y Vet, Van 
a org ee ate Bea-: 


Pa